S.a3.z: 


iffrnm  %  Hthrar^r  of 
Proftaanr  lettiamm  Smktttrftgr  Uarftrlin 

%  Eibrarg  nf 
Prtttrrtnn  Qlljwlngtral  ^mtttarg 

BS  651  .T68  1896 
Townsend,  L.  T.  1838-1922. 
Evolution  or  creation 


EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION  ? 


EVOLUTION  or  CREATION 


A  CRITICAL  REVIEW  OF  THE 
SCIENTIFIC  AND  SCRIPTURAL 
THEORIES  OF  CREATION  AND 
CERTAIN    RELATED   SUBJECTS 


BY 


PROF.  LUTHER  TRACY  TOWNSEND 

D.D. 

AUTHOR  OF  "  CREDO,"   "  FATE  OF   REPUBLICS,"  ETC. 


FLEMING    H.    REVELL    COMPANY 
New  York  Chicago  Toronto 

Publishers  of  Evangelical  Literature 


Copyright,  1896,  by 
Fleming  H.  Revell  Company. 


TO 

OUR  THREE  PRECIOUS  CHILDREN  : 

AGGIE,  WHOSE   HOME    IS    IN   HEAVEN  | 

MAUD,  QUEEN    NOW  OF    HER    OWN    HOME ;    AND 

FANNIE,  WHOSE   GENTLENESS   AND   LOVE 

ARE   OUR   BENEDICTION* 


Within  a  few  days  after  this  dedication  was  written,  Fannie,  pure, 
affectionate,  and  devout,  left  us  and  is  with  Aggie. 


TABLE    OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction n 

CHAPTER   I 
Questions,  Ways,  and  Views 

I.   Vital  Questions 25 

II.  Ways  Proposed  for  Bringing  Man  and  Woman  upon 

the  Earth 26 

III.  Views  Concerning  the  Bible  Account  of  Creation.  .  .  29 

CHAPTER    II 
Dogmatisms  and  Hypotheses 

I.   Dogmatisms  of  Naturalism 35 

II.  Working  Hypotheses 46 

CHAPTER   III 
Origin  of  Life— Naturalistic  Views 

I.   Spontaneous  Generation 56 

II.   Bathybius  and  its  Kindred 64 

III.  Bioplasm 68 

CHAPTER   IV 

Hypothesis  of  Evolution 

I.   Its  History 72 

II.   Facts  Antagonistic  to  this  Hypothesis 76 

III.  Opinions  Antagonistic  to  this  Hypothesis 88 

7 


8  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  V 
Hypothesis  of  Evolution  (Continued) 

I.  Human  Fossils 95 

II.  Civilization 97 

III.  Monkeys  and  Men 107 

IV.  Human  Degeneracy 109 

V.  Opinions  Antagonistic  to  the  Hypothesis  that  Man 

is  the  Product  of  Evolution 114 

CHAPTER   VI 

Enterprise  in  Apes  and  Missing  Links 

I.  Naturalism  in  Close  Quarters 120 

II.   Specific  Statement  of  Monkey  Evolution 122 

CHAPTER   VII 
Beginnings,  Periods,  Mosaic  Days,  Types 

I.  Scientific  Account  of  the  Beginning  of  Things. ....  133 

II.   Classification  of  Geological  Periods 138 

III.  Bible  Account  and  Mosaic  Days 140 

IV.  Law  of  Types 145 

CHAPTER   VIII 
The  Ice  Age  and  the  Mosaic  Week 

I.  The  Ice  Age  of  Geology 155 

II.  The  "  Tohu"  and  "  Bohu  "  of  the  Bible  Identical 

with  the  Ice  Age  of  Geology 168 

III.   Creations  of  the  Mosaic  Week 169 

CHAPTER   IX 
Diversity  of  Opinion  and  Meaning  of  Terms 

I.   Diversity  of  Opinion  as  to  Geological  Periods 182 

II.   Meaning  of  Terms  Employed 186 

III.   Diversity  of  Opinion  as  to  the  Human  Period. ....    189 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  9 

CHAPTER   X 
Man's  First  Appearance  on  Earth 

I.   Geological  Research 198 

II.  Archaeological  Research 211 

III.  Written  History 212 

CHAPTER   XI 
Primitive  Men  and  Race  Unity 

I.   Rough-stone  Age   of    Geology    Identical  with    the 

Antediluvian  Age  of  the  Bible 221 

II.   Unity  of  the  Race 233 

CHAPTER    XII 
The  Trinity  and  the  Logos 

I.  The  Trinity  from  a  Philosophical  and  Scientific  Point 

of  View 243 

II.  An  Appeal  to  the  Bible 254 

III.  The  Logos  in  History 259 

CHAPTER   XIII 
Christ  the  Creator 

I.   Creation  of  Material  Forms  and  the  Gift  of  Life. ...    261 

II.   Creation  of  Man 265 

III.  Creation  of  Woman 276 

CHAPTER   XIV 
Man 

I.  Solitariness  of  Man 290 

II.  Majesty  of  Man 303 


INTRODUCTION 


THIS  book  is  written  for  Christian  people  who 
are  perplexed  with  certain  conclusions  reached 
by  many  celebrated  scientists,  by  not  a  few  dis- 
tinguished philosophers,  and  by  some  theologians. 

So  far  as  the  subjects  discussed  permitted,  we 
have  dropped  scholastic  terms  and  have  expressed 
what  we  have  to  say  in  plain  English  speech. 
We  have  quoted  freely  from  others,  feeling  that 
in  these  times  a  writer  would  be  unwise  to  attempt 
original  investigations  in  the  various  fields  of 
religion,  philosophy,  and  science  when  experts 
already  have  provided  in  abundance  the  data 
desired.  Division  of  labor  to  a  limited  extent, 
as  every  good  quotation  in  any  book  shows,  is 
as  useful  in  literary  as  in  other  undertakings. 

We  are  certain  this  book  will  be  looked  upon 
coldly  by  the  scientist  whose  domains  we  invade, 
also  by  the  socialistic  reformer  who  discounts  all 
inquiries  except  those  that  take  into  consideration 
the  existing  conditions  of  humanity,  and  by  the 
speculative  theologian  who  inclines  to  the  opinion 


12  INTRODUCTION 

that  science  should  be  left  to  take  care  of  itself, 
while  all  thought  and  work  should  be  subordi- 
nated to  a  continuous  preparation  for  an  invisible 
and  endless  destiny. 

The  views  presented  in  this  volume  are  not  a 
sudden  growth,  but  for  years  have  been  enter- 
tained by  the  author. 

In  "  Credo,"  "Bible  Theology  and  Modern 
Thought,"  "The  Arena  and  the  Throne,"  "Mosaic 
Record  and  Modern  Science,"  and  "The  Bible  in 
the  Nineteenth  Century,"  some  of  the  theories  not 
only  were  hinted  at,  but  more  or  less  expanded. 

That  we  have  not  deemed  it  necessary  to 
reconsider  views  that  were  published  twenty 
years  ago  may  be  regarded  by  our  critics  as  a 
humiliating  confession.  But  the  reason  for  this 
persistence  of  opinion  is  not  stubbornness,  or  un- 
familiarity  with  the  most  recent  literature  on  the 
subjects  discussed,  or  any  superior  foresight,  but 
solely  because  from  our  first  book  to  our  last  the 
effort  has  been  to  ascertain  what  the  Bible  teaches, 
and  then  as  far  as  possible  to  harmonize  all  dis- 
coveries and  facts  with  those  teachings,  having 
meanwhile  the  most  implicit  confidence  in  the 
absolute  correctness  of  all  Bible  revelations  when 
rightly  interpreted.  And  as  the  years  have  gone 
by  this  confidence,  instead  of  diminishing,  more 
and  more  firmly  has  been  established. 

We  have  full  knowledge  that  our  logical  treat- 


INTRODUCTION  13 

ment  theoretically  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  contrary 
to  the  so-called  scientific  method,  which  proposes 
to  discover  and  study  facts  without  any  mental 
bias.  We  confess  at  the  outset  that  our  supreme 
faith  in  the  Bible  has  resulted  in  a  bias  or  predis- 
position. And  our  feeling  is  that  even  among 
scientific  men,  whatever  the  creed  they  hold,  not 
one  in  a  thousand  approaches  any  subject  with- 
out a  predisposition  of  some  sort. 

We  hope,  however,  that  it  will  be  seen,  as  the 
discussion  proceeds,  that  the  predisposition  to 
which  we  have  just  made  confession  is  not  such 
as  to  blind  the  mind  to  established  facts,  or  to 
lead  us  in  the  face  of  such  facts  to  reach  errone- 
ous conclusions. 

Under  the  light  of  the  searching  investigations 
now  going  on,  some  of  the  positions  we  defend, 
especially  those  belonging  in  the  field  of  paleon- 
tology (ancient  life  of  the  earth),  may  sooner  or 
later  need  modification.  But  if  this  should  be 
the  case,  we  are  in  a  goodly  company ;  for  there 
is  scarcely  an  investigator  of  note  in  any  field  of 
knowledge  who,  at  one  time  or  another,  has  not 
advanced  views  which  subsequently  he  has  been 
compelled  to  abandon  or  modify. 

During  the  coming  century,  if  there  should  be 
discovered  the  remains  of  anthropoid  (human- 
like) creatures  of  a  character  to  throw  additional 
light  upon  the  supposed  immediate  ancestors  of 


14  INTRODUCTION 

man,  and  if  all  the  missing  links  in  the  chain  of 
animal  life  should  be  found,  our  retreat  would 
not  need  to  be  more  rapid  or  marked  than  that 
of  Professor  Lyell  as  to  the  antiquity  of  the  race, 
or  than  that  of  Professor  Darwin  as  to  several 
views  published  in  the  earlier,  but  abandoned  in 
the  later,  editions  of  his  books. 

So  far  as  the  missing  links  are  concerned,  we 
should  not  regret  their  discovery.  They  would 
prove,  as  we  presently  shall  see,  a  creative  fore- 
cast in  the  universe,  but  not  of  necessity  a  nat- 
uralistic evolution. 

As  will  be  inferred  from  the  foregoing  state- 
ments, we  are  not  in  sympathy  with  many  of  the 
more  recent  scientific  and  theological  views  on 
the  subjects  discussed  in  this  treatise;  but  our 
antagonism,  we  hope,  will  be  found  to  be  not 
against  science  or  philosophy,  but  against  what 
seems  to  us  to  be  an  unscientific  and  unphilo- 
sophical  naturalistic  skepticism. 

A  brief  sketch  of  skepticism,  since  it  is  to  re- 
ceive continuous  mention  in  this  treatise,  will  not 
be  out  of  place  in  this  Introduction. 

In  its  varying  phases  skepticism  has  not  been 
an  immutable  creature ;  it  has  changed  with  its 
environments.  But,  true  to  its  instincts,  what- 
ever has  been  its  attitude  toward  other  things,  it 
always  has  been  the  same  relentless  foe  of  super- 
naturalism. 


INTRODUCTION  15 

Beginning  with  the  Christian  era,  the  Gnostics 
(men  of  knowledge),  properly  termed  rationalists, 
promised  and  attempted  great  things.  But  though 
their  attacks  were  resolute,  they  disturbed  none 
of  the  foundations  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  in  a 
few  years  Gnosticism  took  its  place  among  the 
exploded  philosophies  of  mankind. 

Several  hundred  years  passed,  and  then  skep- 
ticism, becoming  what  is  known  as  "free  thought," 
threatened  the  extinction  of  supernaturalism.  But 
through  this  crisis  Christianity  passed,  and  there 
was  no  smell  of  fire  left  upon  its  garments. 

The  philosophical  skepticism  of  I  740  found  in 
David  Hume  an  able  champion,  who  confidently 
predicted  the  overthrow  of  supernaturalism  before 
the  dawn  of  the  twentieth  century.  About  the 
same  time  Voltaire,  representing  the  skepticism 
of  France,  with  great  assurance  asserted  that, 
though  it  had  taken  twelve  men  to  plant  the 
creeds  of  supernaturalism,  his  single  arm  would 
root  them  out. 

In  the  same  tone  was  the  boast  of  Thomas 
Paine,  who  stood  as  an  advocate  in  America  of 
the  skepticism  of  his  day.  "  I  have  cut  down," 
he  said,  "  every  tree  in  the  garden  of  Paradise." 
By  which  he  meant  that  there  was  nothing  left 
for  supernaturalism  as  embodied  in  Christianity 
except  to  die  at  the  roots. 

Theodore  Parker,  a  later  American  representa- 


16  INTRODUCTION 

tive  of  a  kind  of  philanthropic  skepticism,  declared 
that  he  would  traverse  New  England  in  all  direc- 
tions, that  his  voice  should  be  heard  in  city  and 
village,  and  that,  unless  there  were  something 
more  in  the  popular  theology  than  he  dreamed, 
he  would  demolish  it  to  its  foundations.  • 

In  Germany,  during  the  last  of  the  eighteenth 
and  the  first  of  the  nineteenth  century,  unbelief 
took  the  form  of  "  destructive  criticism."  It 
sought  to  eliminate  from  the  Christian  religion 
everything  supernatural.  But,  quite  contrary  to 
the  expectations  of  those  who  originated  the 
effort,  it  resulted  in  placing  Christianity  on  a 
firmer  basis  than  ever  before  occupied.  As 
Canon  Farrar,  speaking  of  the  movement,  says, 
"  The  period  of  doubt,  though  sad,  became  the 
transition  to  a  more  deeply  seated  Christian 
faith." 

Of  late  years  in  Europe  and  America  skepticism 
has  played  several  parts.  It  has  been  a  "  higher 
critic  "  ;  it  has  been  a  proud,  synthetic  philoso- 
pher; it  has  been  an  atheistic  materialist;  it  has 
been  an  imperious  agnostic,  regarding  with  disdain 
any  profession  of  religion  that  a  human  being 
might  make. 

During  the  last  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury skepticism  has  been  especially  active  in  the 
field  of  naturalism.  It  has  allowed  no  depart- 
ment of  knowledge  to  escape  its  attention.     It 


INTRODUCTION  17 

has  been  engaged  in  biological  experiments;  it 
has  made  geological  researches;  it  has  explored 
ancient  ruins ;  it  has  read  written  history ;  it  has 
studied  the  structure  of  language;  but  with  all 
its  diligence,  and  much  to  its  discomfiture,  it  has 
been  unable  to  find  that  which  has  been  the  ob- 
ject of  its  most  untiring  search ;  namely,  some 
way  of  bringing  life  and  man  upon  our  planet 
without  the  supernatural  interposition  of  an 
almighty  and  all-wise  Being. 

Naturalism  at  the  present  time  has  a  waning 
reputation,  and  is  not  able  to  point  to  a  single 
scientist,  whether  theist  or  atheist,  who  claims  to 
be  able  to  offer  a  particle  of  reliable  evidence 
that  life  originally  could  have  appeared  on  earth 
except  through  the  presence  of  antecedent  life. 

Furthermore,  naturalism  with  silenced  lips  is 
forced  to  confront  the  charge,  made  by  such 
eminent  and  loyal  high  priests  of  science  as  Lotze, 
Wundt,  Helmholtz,  and  Professors  Agassiz,  Gray, 
Dana,  and  scores  of  others,  that  the  naturalistic 
theory  of  evolution  independent  of  supernatural 
interpositions,  in  the  light  of  modern  thought,  is 
the  merest  unauthorized  assumption. 

In  fact,  naturalism  is  fast  becoming  an  aban- 
doned camp.  Dr.  Haeckel,  one  of  its  most  reso- 
lute defenders,  is  by  his  own  confession  almost 
the  only  one  left  to  reject  the  theory  that  there 
has  been  a  supernatural  interposition  in  the  crea- 


18  INTRODUCTION 

tion  of  the  universe.  "  Most  naturalists  at  the 
present  day,"  he  says,  "  are  inclined  to  give  up 
the  attempt  at  natural  explanation,  and  take  ref- 
uge in  the  miracle  of  inconceivable  creation." 

In  his  "  History  of  the  Creation,"  Haeckel 
makes  this  additional  confession :  "  At  one  part  of 
the  history  of  development  we  must  have  recourse 
to  the  miracle  of  a  supernatural  creation  if  we  do 
not  accept  the  hypothesis  of  spontaneous  gener- 
ation." 

But  spontaneous  generation,  as  presently  we 
shall  see,  is  an  exploded  theory,  and  Haeckel 
and  his  few  straggling  followers  are  left,  therefore, 
with  no  scientific  support  whatever  for  their  athe- 
istic naturalism. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  friends  of  supernatural- 
ism  have  abundant  reason  for  encouragement, 
not  only  from  the  results  of  scientific  investigation, 
but  also  ;n  the  fact  that  strong  allies  from  un- 
expected quarters  recently  have  appeared  in  its 
defense. 

In  1876  Professor  George  Q.  Romanes  was 
writing  in  the  interest  of  skepticism.  He  was 
recognized  as  one  of  the  most  eminent  men  of 
science,  remarkably  able  and  clear-sighted,  and 
in  his  defense  of  naturalism  standing  second  to 
scarcely  any  one.  In  his  last  book  recently  pub- 
lished, he  is  found  to  have  renounced  his  former 
views,  taking  the  attitude  of  a  defender  of  the 


INTRODUCTION  19 

Christian  faith,  and  died  a  few  months  ago  with 
his  eyes  fixed  in  the  direction  of  the  cross. 

Right  Hon.  Mr.  Balfour,  a  brilliant  debater,  an 
able  administrator,  a  solid  and  thoughtful  writer, 
who  in  English  politics  ranks  next,  perhaps,  to 
Mr.  Gladstone,  wrote  not  long  since  a  book  en- 
titled "The  Foundations  of  Belief,"  in  which  he 
appeared  as  an  adverse  critic  of  naturalism,  de- 
fending with  much  ability  the  primitive  faith  of 
the  Christian  church. 

In  the  midsummer  number  of  the  "  Fortnightly 
Review,"  1895,  Herbert  Spencer  tried  to  break 
the  force  of  the  strong  blows  of  Balfour's  book 
and  at  the  same  time  to  parry  the  keen  strokes 
of  Professor  Mivart's  attacks.  No  one  who  read 
the  article  of  Mr.  Spencer  can  fail  to  see  that 
much  of  his  reply  is  feeble  and  incoherent. 

It  is  also  noticeable  that  writers  for  the  news- 
paper press  and  for  the  various  reviews  of  Europe 
and  America,  secular  as  well  as  religious,  almost 
to  a  man  concurred  in  the  opinion  that  Herbert 
Spencer's  elaborate  system  of  naturalism  at  length 
has  broken  down ;  that  he  no  longer  is  the  giant 
his  friends  once  thought  him ;  that  the  Christian 
faith,  so  far  as  he  is  concerned,  is  moving  calmly 
on  as  if  nothing  had  happened,  gaining  in  every 
quarter  its  conquests;  and  that  in  the  highest 
realms  of  science  and  philosophy  Christianity  is 
entitled,  as  never  before,  at  least  to  a  new  hearing. 


20  INTRODUCTION 

Others,  too,  are  speaking,  some  of  whom  have 
spoken  before ;  and  among  them  is  the  foremost 
of  Englishmen,  one  who  is  known  throughout  the 
world  better  than  any  other  Englishman,  the 
Right  Hon.  William  E.  Gladstone.  He  has 
written  recently  an  introduction  to  an  American 
publication  in  defense  of  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
and  now  is  engaged  on  another  work  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  Christian  faith  under  the  suggestive 
and  luminous  title,  "  The  Triumphs  of  the  Cross." 

Professor  James  Dwight  Dana,  whose  scientific 
publications  have  placed  him  in  the  front  rank  of 
philosophical  naturalists,  in  one  of  his  most  recent 
utterances  offers  anew  his  tribute  to  the  Christian 
faith  in  these  words  :  "  I  find  nothing  in  my  view 
of  evolution  to  impair  or  disturb  my  religious 
faith ;  that  is,  my  faith  in  Christ  as  the  source  of 
all  hope  for  time  and  for  eternity.  The  new 
doctrines  of  science  have  a  tendency  to  spread 
infidelity  ;  but  it  is  because  the  ideas  are  new  and 
their  true  bearing  is  not  understood.  The  wave 
of  scientific  skepticism  is  already  on  the  decline, 
and  it  is  beginning  to  be  seen,  more  clearly  than 
ever,  that  science  can  have  nothing  to  say  against 
moral  or  spiritual  questions,  and  that  it  fulfils  its 
highest  purpose  in  manifesting  more  and  more 
the  glory  of  God." 

Across  the  English  Channel,  Brunetiere,  an  ac- 
complished and  brilliant  essayist,  reviewer,  and 


INTRODUCTION  21 

critic,  quite  recently  has  been  throwing  bomb- 
shells into  the  naturalistic  camp,  under  the  title, 
"The  Bankruptcy  of  Science,"  and  the  naturalis- 
tic skeptics  of  France  appear  not  to  know  what  to 
say  in  reply. 

In  Germany  the  reaction  against  naturalistic 
and  materialistic  skepticism  is  beginning  to  be 
noticeable,  if  not  pronounced.  It  looks,  as  an 
English  reviewer  recently  has  said,  as  though 
"  the  Christian  religion  is  about  to  have  its 
innings." 

Only  a  few  months  ago  one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished of  modern  scientists,  to  whose  words 
repeatedly  we  shall  refer  in  this  volume,  passed 
from  sight.  And  it  is  no  small  gratification  to 
the  Christian  believer  that  this  great  apostle  of 
naturalism,  who  was  more  religious  than  he  ever 
admitted,  or  perhaps  than  he  knew,  asked,  a  few 
days  before  his  death,  to  be  buried  with  the  rites 
of  the  beautiful  and  impressive  service  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

Over  his  dead  body,  in  the  chapel  at  Maryle- 
bone,  was  read  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, fifteenth  chapter.  And  nowhere  in  all 
the  world's  literature  can  be  found  words  that, 
at  the  mouth  of  a  newly  dug  grave,  are  more 
fitting  and  inspiring.  "  Behold,  I  show  you  a 
mystery ;  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all 
be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an 


22  INTRODUCTION 

eye,  at  the  last  trump:  for  the  trumpet  shall 
sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible, 
and  we  shall  be  changed.  For  this  corruptible 
must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must 
put  on  immortality.  So  when  this  corruptible 
shall  have  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal 
shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then  shall  be 
brought  to  pass  the  saying  that  is  written,  Death 
is  swallowed  up  in  victory.  O  death,  where  is 
thy  sting  ?  O  grave,  where  is  thy  victory  ?  The 
sting  of  death  is  sin;  and  the  strength  of  sin  is 
the  law.  But  thanks  be  to  God,  which  giveth 
us  the  victory  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Therefore,  my  beloved  brethren,  be  ye  steadfast, 
unmovable,  always  abounding  in  the  work  of 
the  Lord,  forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  your  labor 
is  not  in  vain  in  the  Lord." 

To  those  who  think  deeply  it  is  very  suggestive 
that  Professor  Huxley,  whom  Christians  have 
been  inclined  to  class  among  their  foes,  in  his  last 
hours  turned  his  face  toward  the  light,  at  least 
not  away  from  the  light,  that  comes  from  super- 
naturalism. 

In  concluding  this  perhaps  too  lengthy  Intro- 
duction, the  reader  will  allow  an  expression  of 
assurance  that  supernaturalism  as  represented 
by  the  Christian  religion  was  never  more  potent 
than  at  this  very  hour.  The  tomb  in  which  the 
early  and  the  later  and  the  latest  naturalism  has 


INTRODUCTION  23 

sought  to  bury  it  is  empty.  The  faith  that  was 
thought  to  be  in  its  grave  has  come  forth  and  is 
everywhere,  and,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
there  never  can  be  for  it  anything  like  a  contin- 
uous decline  or  death.  A  system  of  philosophy 
and  religion  that  is  able  to  assuage  trouble,  re- 
lieve anxiety,  and  afford  grand  and  inspiring  con- 
ceptions of  human  life  and  destiny  carries  along 
with  it,  in  a  world  like  ours,  the  potency  and 
promise  of  a  final  triumph. 

Goethe  did  not  fail  to  note  this  power  and  per- 
sistence of  the  Christian  faith,  paying  it  a  high 
compliment :  "  The  greatest  honor  is  due  to 
Christianity  for  continually  proving  its  pure  and 
noble  origin  by  coming  forth  again,  after  the 
great  aberrations  into  which  human  perversity 
has  led  it,  more  speedily  than  was  expected,  with 
its  primitive,  special  charm  ...  for  the  relief  of 
human  exigency  unimpaired." 

If  we  mistake  not,  the  period  of  destructive 
criticism  in  all  its  phases  is  passing,  and  a  resto- 
ration of  primitive  orthodoxy,  on  a  more  decided 
intellectual  plane  than  ever  before,  already  has 
begun.  And  in  view  of  what  almost  daily  is 
unfolding,  a  late  prophecy  in  the  London 
"  Quarterly  Review"  does  not  seem  extravagant: 
"  The  twentieth  century  will  find  the  structure 
of  Christian  faith  more  firmly  founded,  more 
widely  extended,  more  abundantly  enriched  and 


24  INTRODUCTION 

strengthened  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of 
Christendom." 

The  grounds  of  these  triumphs  are  funda- 
mental, and  are  briefly  set  forth  by  Lecky,  in  his 
"  History  of  Rationalism  "  :  "  The  great  charac- 
teristic of  Christianity,  and  the  great  moral  proof 
of  its  divinity,  is  that  it  has  been  the  main  source 
of  the  moral  development  of  Europe,  and  that  it 
has  discharged  this  office  not  so  much  by  the  in- 
culcation of  a  system  of  ethics,  however  pure,  as 
by  the  assimilating  and  attractive  influence  of  a 
perfect  ideal." 

It  is  to  the  author  an  occasion  of  profoundest 
gratitude  that  in  this  book,  and  early  in  the  ap- 
proaching revival,  he  is  permitted  to  make  a  slight 
contribution  to  a  body  of  literature,  in  exposition 
and  illustration  of  the  sublime  truths  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  that  the  next  quarter  of  a  century 
is  sure  to  call  forth  from  the  ablest  minds  in  the 
civilized  world — those  engaged  in  secular  and 
scientific  as  well  as  in  distinctively  religious  pur- 
suits. 


CHAPTER   I 
Questions,  Ways,  and  Views 

i.  vital  questions 

How  came  the  human  race  on  this  earth,  what 
is  its  mission  here,  and  what  its  destiny?  are 
questions  that  over  and  over  again  recur  to 
thoughtful  minds,  and  are  the  basis  of  some  of 
the  profoundest  and  some  of  the  most  intensely 
interesting  discussions  and  speculations  that  have 
appeared  in  the  realms  of  physical  science,  psy- 
chology, ethics,  and  religion. 

Nor  is  there  any  reason  for  supposing  that 
there  will  be  an  abatement  of  this  interest,  at 
least  until  the  close  of  the  present  human  dispen- 
sation. Different  points  of  view  may  be  taken ; 
additional  light  may  shine  on  the  various  prob- 
lems of  matter,  mind,  and  life  ;  data  not  before 
observed  may  come  to  the  aid  of  the  inquirer; 
but  all  this  will  only  intensify  interest  in  these 
questions  that  forever  lie  in  the  pathway  of  man- 
kind. 

25 


26  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

The  ground  we  propose  to  cover,  or  rather  the 
ground  to  which  we  limit  our  investigation,  is 
that  lying  within  the  range  of  the  first  of  the 
foregoing  questions,  How  came  the  human  race 
on  this  earth?  Relatively  this  question  is  of  less 
importance  than  either  of  the  others,  but  it  has 
nevertheless  an  importance  of  its  own,  and  is 
logically  and  historically  first  in  order;  and  as  it 
is  the  only  one  in  which  naturalism  takes  any 
considerable  interest,  and  as  it  has  constituted  the 
bone  of  contention  between  naturalism  and  super- 
naturalism  during  the  last  fifty  years,  and  because 
of  other  reasons  that  shortly  will  appear,  we  se- 
lect it  for  discussion  in  this  treatise. 


II.   WAYS    PROPOSED    FOR    BRINGING    MAN   AND 
WOMAN    UPON   THE    EARTH 

The  various  methods  or  devices  that  have  been 
suggested  for  bringing  the  human  race  into  this 
world  may  be  reduced  to  three.  First,  man  and 
woman  came  without  any  supernatural  or  mirac- 
ulous interposition  whatever.  Second,  they  came 
by  a  sort  of  indirect,  or  mediate,  supernatural  or 
miraculous  interposition.  Third,  they  came  by 
a  direct  supernatural  or  miraculous  interposition 
and  in  precisely  the  way  the  Bible  describes. 

The  first  method  has  no  room  in  it  for  a  per- 


QUESTIONS,    IV AYS,   AND   VIEWS  27 

sonal  God.  All  the  beautiful,  all  the  marvelous, 
and  all  the  stupendous  things  in  the  sky  and  on 
the  earth,  including  man  and  woman,  with  their 
bodies,  minds,  and  souls,  from  the  beginning  or 
from  all  eternity,  have  been  wrapped  up  in 
matter.  In  other  words,  matter  itself  contains 
whatever  of  potency  or  of  activity  or  of  wisdom 
is  essential  in  the  evolution  of  all  things. 

The  process  of  this  evolution  is  claimed  to  be 
a  perfectly  natural  one,  and  is  twofold;  namely, 
spontaneous  generation  of  life  at  the  outset, 
wherever  generation  of  any  kind  is  needed,  and 
afterward  evolution  by  natural  selection,  or  by 
the  survival  of  the  fittest,  or  by  the  use  or  disuse 
of  organs  or  parts,  carried  on  through  millions  of 
years. 

The  second  method  is  opposed  to  the  first  in 
this,  that  it  has  a  measure  of  room  for  a  personal 
God.  According  to  this  view  of  the  origin  of 
humanity,  certain  original  germs  or  germ-stuffs 
were  miraculously  created,  and  the  first  passage 
or  change  of  these  non-living  into  living  germs 
took  place  under  the  Creator's  immediate  super- 
intendence. But  afterward  the  evolution  from 
these  feeble  beginnings  into  all  the  higher  forms, 
including  man  and  woman,  with  their  distinctive 
and  marvelous  endowments  of  thought,  will,  and 
conscience,  has  been  achieved  through  perfectly 


28  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

natural  processes,  long  continued,  to  be  sure,  and 
somewhat  weary,  orderly  or  abrupt  as  the  case 
might  require,  and  with  nothing  more  of  anything 
supernatural  or  miraculous  than  daily  is  passing 
under  our  eyes  in,  for  instance,  the  growth  of  a 
tree  or  the  development  of  a  child. 

The  third  method  differs  from  both  the  others 
in  this,  that  it  interprets  the  Bible  account  of 
creation  literally,  and  therefore  finds  a  miracle- 
worker,  present  and  active,  at  every  stage  of 
world-building  and  of  man-making. 

It  may  be  regarded  by  our  readers  as  an  act 
of  unwarrantable  rashness,  but,  for  reasons  that 
at  length  will  be  obvious,  we  set  aside  at  the  start 
the  second  method  in  the  foregoing  enumeration, 
which  is  the  one  that  apparently  is  beset  with 
fewest  difficulties,  and  the  one  that  first  and  last 
and  by  many  persons  has  been  adopted  as  a  sort 
of  compromise  measure.  But  to  us  it  seems  an 
exceedingly  illogical  and  perilous  method  both 
from  a  theological  and  a  scientific  point  of  view, 
and,  like  most  compromise  measures,  we  are  sure 
that  in  the  end  it  will  fail  to  satisfy  any  one. 

We  are  left,  therefore,  to  limit  our  discussion 
to  this  twofold  question :  Did  man  and  woman 
come  upon  the  earth  through  spontaneous  gen- 
eration, followed  by  some  sort  of  natural  evolu- 
tion, or  did  they  come  by  supernatural  interposi- 
tion, and  in  precisely  the  way  the  Bible  describes? 


QLJ EST  IONS,    WAYS,   AND   VIEWS  29 

III.    VIEWS    CONCERNING   THE    BIBLE    ACCOUNT 
OF    CREATION 

The  different  methods  of  expounding  the  Bible 
story  of  creation  are  easily  grouped.  First,  there 
is  the  out-and-out  skeptical  view.  Those  who 
hold  it  pronounce  the  Eden  story  a  mere  fable, 
having  its  origin  in  the  infancy  of  the  human 
race,  and  that  it  no  more  represents  the  real 
facts  connected  with  the  origin  of  man  and 
woman  than  the  crudest  mythical  legends  of 
ancient  or  of  uncivilized  peoples  represent  the 
condition  of  things  that  those  legends  describe. 

This  skeptical  view  strikes  not  only  a  fatal  blow 
at  the  Bible  account  of  creation,  but,  so  far  as  it 
contains  anything  miraculous  or  supernatural,  it 
antagonizes  the  entire  scriptural  record. 

The  second  method  of  interpreting  the  Bible 
account  of  creation,  and  the  one  that  is  held  by 
many  thoughtful  and  devout  Christian  scholars, 
is  that  the  story  no  longer  should  be  regarded  as 
literal  in  all  its  particulars,  but  should  be  viewed 
as  a  series  of  symbolical,  pictorial,  or  scenic 
representations,  allowing  of  various  and  easily 
"adjustable  explanations."  It  is  held  to  be  an 
apocalypse  of  the  past,  in  the  same  way  that  the 
revelations  granted  to  John  in  Patmos  are  an 
apocalypse  of  the  future.     As   Bishop   Clifford 


30  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

states  the  case,  "  Genesis  is  a  liturgical  poem, 
whose  design  is  to  consecrate  the  days  of  the 
actual  week  to  the  memory  of  the  several  works 
of  creation." 

Those  who  hold  this  view,  among  whom  are 
several  eminent  scientists  and  men  of  literature, 
also  not  a  few  theologians,  do  not  question  for  a 
moment  what  is  called  the  "  subjective  truthful- 
ness "  and  consistency  of  these  symbolical  pic- 
tures. Indeed,  they  think  or  claim  that  this 
poetic  view  gives  the  Mosaic  account  a  signifi- 
cance and  grandeur  that  is  not  possible  when  the 
story  is  regarded  as  literal  in  all  its  particulars. 
These  interpreters  tell  us  that  the  Bible  to  them 
was  never  so  grand  a  book  as  since  these  new 
views  have  been  entertained. 

According  to  this  "  improved  interpretation," 
the  words,  "  the  Lord  God  formed  man  from  the 
dust  of  the  ground,"  do  not  mean  that  God  took 
plastic  clay  and  literally  molded  the  image  of  a 
man,  but  mean  that  originally  man,  in  common 
with  all  animals,  came  by  evolution  or  by  other 
perfectly  natural  processes  from  the  earth ;  and 
the  words,  "  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life,"  do  not  mean  a  literal  breathing  into  the 
nostrils,  but  that  the  human  body,  passing  by 
orderly  evolutions  from  lower  physical  conditions 
and  environments,  through  multiplied  ages,  at 
length  was  brought  to  a  state  in  which  it  received 


QUESTIONS,    IV AYS,   AND   VIEWS  31 

a  special  divine  touch,  and  thereby  was  consti- 
tuted a  new  species,  and  man,  with  the  "  in- 
spiration of  the  Almighty  "  upon  him,  was  the 
outcome. 

Professor  Dana  puts  the  matter  in  this  form : 
"  While  admitting  the  derivation  of  man  from  an 
inferior  species,  I  believe  that  there  was  a  divine 
creative  act  at  the  origin  of  man ;  that  the  event 
was  as  truly  a  creation  as  if  it  had  been  from 
earth  or  inorganic  matter  to  man." 

Very  similar  are  the  words  of  Professor  Alex- 
ander Winchell :  "  Preadamitism  does  not  exclude 
the  current  conception  of  Adamic  creation.  It 
admits  that  Adam  was  '  created,'  but  substitutes 
for  manual  modeling  of  the  plastic  clay  the  wor- 
thier conception  of  origination  according  to  a  ge- 
netic method,  and  thus  embraces  the  Adamic  ori- 
gin under  an  intelligible  method  of  production 
so  sublime  and  significant  as  to  include  the  whole 
world  of  organic  beings.  That  higher  percep- 
tion, which  is  a  function  of  reason,  clearly  discerns 
in  derivative  origins  the  perpetual  presence  and 
potency  of  a  Power  which  is  in  matter,  but  does 
not  belong  to  matter.  The  derivation  of  Adam 
from  an  older  human  stock  is  essentially  and  lit- 
erally the  creation  of  Adam." 

Professors  Dana  and  Winchell,  as  the  reader 
notices,  are  far  more  respectful  in  their  language 
than  are  some  of  our  theologians  and  clergymen, 


32  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

who  ironically  characterize  the  Adam  of  a  literal 
translation  as  "  the  mud  man  "  or  "  the  mud-pie 
man  "  of  theology. 

Again,  according  to  this  pictorial  method  of 
interpretation,  the  Mosaic  account  does  not  mean 
that  the  Lord  really  "  caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall 
upon  Adam,"  and  then  took  a  rib  from  him  and 
made  it  into  a  woman,  as  the  Bible  reads,  but 
means  that  by  an  "  ineffable  process,"  as  Profes- 
sor Lange  suggests,  or  by  a  "  mere  functional 
impulse,"  as  Professor  S.  H.  Carpenter  would 
say,  the  female  nature,  at  some  point  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  human  body,  "  was  organically  divided 
from  the  one  generic  humanity,"  and  somehow 
man  became  two — man  and  woman. 

That  this  poetic,  pictorial,  or  scenic  view  of  the 
story  of  creation  is  in  some  respects  a  relief  from 
scientific  and  theological  difficulties  is  apparent 
enough ;  so  much  so,  indeed,  that  for  a  long  time 
we  hesitated  to  attack  it.  But  on  further  thought 
the  conviction  came  that  by  adopting  this  so- 
called  "  improved  method  "  of  interpretation  all 
perplexity  is  not  removed,  and  that  certain 
new  and  very  embarrassing  difficulties  are  en- 
countered. 

One  of  the  new  difficulties  that  attaches  to  the 
pictorial  method  of  interpretation  is  that  it  makes 
it  quite  impossible  to  tell  where  the  poetry  of  any 
part  of  the  Bible  ends  and  where  the  literal  ac- 


QUESTIONS,    IV AYS,   AND    VIEWS  33 

count  begins.  Each  reader  is  left  to  decide  this 
matter  for  himself. 

Moreover,  by  such  an  interpretation  the  integ- 
rity of  the  whole  record  is  imperiled.  And,  as 
we  said  before,  the  naturalist  is  no  better  satisfied, 
from  a  purely  scientific  point  of  view,  with  the 
scenic  or  poetic  than  with  the  literal  version  of 
the  story. 

The  third  method  of  viewing  the  Bible  account 
of  creation,  which  is  really  first  in  logical  order, 
though  sometimes  it  is  readopted  after  other 
methods  have  been  tested,  regards  the  Book  of 
Genesis  as  a  literal  statement  of  facts  as  they 
actually  took  place.  It  is  the  view  held  by  the 
child  that  has  been  reared  in  a  Christian  home. 
To  such  a  child  the  story  is  literal  in  all  its  par- 
ticulars. No  imaginary  or  scientific  difficulties 
stand  in  the  way.  The  child  reads,  is  interested, 
and  believes. 

It  is  also  the  view  of  great  multitudes  of  devout 
Christian  people  who  as  yet  have  not  been  dis- 
turbed at  all  by  the  science  and  art  of  "  higher 
criticism."  To  this  innocent-mindedness  the  Old 
Testament  story  of  creation  is  no  more  a  myth 
than  is  the  New  Testament  account  of  the  birth, 
life,  and  miracles  of  Christ,  or  than  the  story  of 
Paul's  conversion  and  shipwreck. 

It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  unliteral  view 
has  become  of  late  so  popular,  and  the  literal  one 


1/ 


34  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

so  much  discredited,  that  most  .of  our  readers 
have  begun  to  wonder  if  in  these  last  years  of  the 
nineteenth  century  any  one  who  pretends  to  be 
familiar  with  the  facts  of  science  and  with  the 
recent  methods  of  Bible  study,  and  who  cares  at 
all  for  his  reputation,  can  be  found  who,  appa- 
rently with  a  multitude  of  odds  against  him,  is 
venturesome  enough  to  defend  the  literalism  of 
the  Bible  account  of  creation. 


CHAPTER   II 

Dogmatisms  and  Hypotheses 

i.  dogmatisms  of  naturalism 

Scientific  investigators  claim  great  fairness 
in  their  researches  and  in  their  reception  and  use 
of  facts  that  come  under  their  observation.  Men 
in  other  intellectual  pursuits  have  been  inclined 
to  grant  most  of  these  claims,  though  sometimes 
compelled  to  object  to  the  reasoning  employed 
and  to  dissent  from  not  a  few  of  the  conclusions 
reached. 

In  recent  years,  however,  the  positions  taken 
and  the  language  employed  by  skeptical  investi- 
gators have  forced  the  conviction  upon  not  a  few 
minds  that  the  results  of  modern  scientific  dis- 
covery are  not  always  impartially  presented  to 
the  outside  public.  At  all  events,  the  suspicion 
has  been  on  the  increase  that  "  the  obscuring  in- 
fluence of  a  preconceived  idea,"  as  Bacon  desig- 
nates the  disease,  has  dropped  a  veil  over  the 
perceptions  of  some  of  our  scientific  friends,  or 

35 


36  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

that  possibly  a  wilful  intent  has  concealed  much 
of  importance  that  otherwise  would  make  for 
supernaturalism  as  opposed  to  naturalism. 

We  do  not,  or  at  least  ought  not  to,  censure 
too  severely  our  naturalistic  leaders  on  account 
of  their  intellectual  crookedness ;  for  they  are 
exposed  with  the  rest  of  the  world  to  a  common 
depravity.  Says  the  distinguished  author  just 
referred  to  in  his  "  Novum  Organum  " :  "  If  the 
human  intellect  hath  once  taken  a  liking  to  any 
doctrine,  either  because  received  and  credited  or 
because  otherwise  pleasing,  it  draws  everything 
else  into  harmony  with  that  doctrine,  and  to  its 
support ;  and  albeit  there  may  be  found  a  more 
powerful  array  of  contradictory  instances,  these, 
however,  it  does  not  observe,  or  it  contemns, 
or  by  distinction  extenuates  and  rejects  them." 
More  briefly  Mr.  Emerson  expresses  the  same 
thought  thus  :  "  Give  me  the  creed  of  a  man,  and 
I  will  tell  you  what  he  will  say." 

That  we  do  not  stand  alone  in  the  opinion  that 
the  foregoing  observation  is  as  true  of  scientific 
as  of  other  men  is  evident  from  a  remark  of  Pro- 
fessor Alpheus  Hyatt,  who  is  a  thoroughgoing 
naturalistic  evolutionist,  and  whose  careful  work, 
especially  among  Jurassic  ammonites,  has  brought 
him  into  very  favorable  notice  at  home  and 
abroad.  He  says,  "  A  scientific  man  who  has  a 
theory  to  support  is  as  stubbornly  difficult  to 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  37 

convince,  even  on  clear  evidence,  as  any  other 
man."  In  support  of  this  charge  he  gives  an  in- 
stance of  a  distinguished  German  professor  who 
had  tacitly  admitted  that  if  a  certain  type  of  shell 
could  be  found  .he  would  adopt  Professor  Hyatt's 
theory,  though  opposed  to  his  own. 

After  a  ten  days'  search  among  the  cabinets  of 
Germany,  Hyatt  made  the  discovery.  He  re- 
turned to  the  professor,  stated  what  he  had  found, 
and  presented  him  with  drawings. 

Did  that  distinguished  scientific  German  natu- 
ralist thank  Professor  Hyatt?  Did  he  acknow- 
ledge his  error?  No;  he  looked  at  those  draw- 
ings, laid  them  down,  then  looked  at  them  again. 
His  face  colored  slightly  ;  he  arose,  walked  to  the 
window,  gazed  out,  and,  while  holding  the  fact  in 
one  hand  and  his  theory  in  the  other,  emphati- 
cally replied,  "I  don't  believe  it!"  That  was 
dogmatism  with  a  vengeance.  He  was  like  the 
distinguished  scientific  professor  of  Padua,  who 
would  not  look  through  the  telescope  lest  he 
should  see  the  moons  of  Jupiter,  which  he  did  not 
want  to  see.  Naturalism  has  a  way  of  hypnotiz- 
ing not  only  the  common  people,  but  even  the 
leaders  of  scientific  thought. 

Now,  as  these  facts  ever  and  anon  are  cropping 
out,  it  ought  not  to  surprise  any  one  that  such 
questions  as  the  following  are  beginning  to  crowd 
on  the  lips  of  those  who  but  lately  listened  rever- 


38  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

ently  and  in  silence  to  the  high  priests  of  the  scien- 
tific world  : — Have  not  the  inclinations  of  skeptical 
scientists  been  mother  to  their  opinions?  Have 
they  not  been  questioning  truth  partially  ?  May 
not  their  enthusiasm,  as  too  often  is  the  case  with 
other  men,  have  incapacitated  them  for  making 
broad  and  wholesome  generalizations? 

Hence  when  the  scientist,  or,  for  that  matter, 
the  philosopher  or  the  theologian,  approaches, 
no  surprise  should  be  felt  if  the  command,  "  Hats 
off,"  is  not  obeyed  as  meekly  and  instantly  as  it 
was  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago.  "  Why  should 
I  take  my  hat  off?  "  is  a  question  that  any  man 
has  a  right  to  ask  in  this  independent  age  of 
ours. 

We  hope,  however,  from  these  remarks,  no 
one  will  infer  that  we  are  unappreciative  of  the 
valuable  and  hard  work  done  by  many  of  our 
scientific  smiths.  Their  patient  and  untiring  in- 
vestigations are  entitled  to  a  world's  grateful 
recognition.  And,  personally,  we  pledge  our 
supreme  loyalty  in  this  discussion  to  every  fact 
these  men  can  establish.  But  in  all  sincerity  we 
add  that,  with  regard  to  some  of  the  conclusions 
reached  by  eminent  naturalists,  and  for  some  of 
their  published  opinions,  we  have  the  most  un- 
qualified disrespect;  we  are  compelled  to  regard 
them  of  no  weight  or  importance  whatever. 

Now  it  is  doubtless  the  judgment  of  most  of 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  39 

our  readers  that  the  apparent  lack  of  courtesy 
shown  in  these  remarks  toward  those  who  have  a 
world-wide  reputation  and  great  wealth  of  ma- 
terials with  which  to  support  their  opinions  ought 
not,  except  for  the  very  best  of  reasons,  to  be 
indulged,  especially  by  one  whose  time  for  origi- 
nal research  in  these  matters  of  necessity  is  limited. 
We  therefore,  venture  a  word  by  way  of  personal 
explanation.  At  the  Edinburgh  meeting  of  the 
British  Association,  187 1,  Sir  William  Thomson 
being  for  that  year  the  president,  we  were  for- 
tunately in  attendance. 

Nearly  all  the  distinguished  scientific  men  of 
the  British  empire  were  there,  also  some  of  the 
most  noted  men  of  all  Europe  and  America.  We 
never  can  forget  the  emotions  almost  of  awe  with 
which  that  array  of  the  world's  learning  was 
looked  upon. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  never  can  forget 
the  feelings  of  surprise  that  came  by  reason  of 
the  opening  address  of  the  president.  His  effort 
was  to  explain  on  the  grounds  of  naturalism  the 
origin  of  life  in  this  world.  Already  the  gravest 
doubts  as  to  the  efficiency  of  spontaneous  gen- 
eration to  produce  life  had  been  expressed,  and 
therefore  Sir  William  sought,  as  could  be  ex- 
pected, some  other  naturalistic  way  of  introduc- 
ing it  upon  our  planet.  Hence  he  concluded  to 
bring  it  here  from  somewhere  outside.    And,  ap- 


40  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

parently  with  the  utmost  seriousness  and  amid 
the  hush  of  that  learned  assembly,  he  advanced 
the  theory  that  life  came  to  this  planet  on  a  me- 
teoric fragment  from  some  other  planet. 

At  first  the  discussion  seemed  a  huge  joke. 
But  Sir  William  was  serious  and  earnest,  and 
those  distinguished  men  listened  intently,  and 
some  of  them  nodded  assent. 

On  second  thought,  how  could  we  help  ask- 
ing if  scientific  men  really  are  entitled  to  even  a 
moderate  measure  of  respect  while  propounding 
in  the  name  of  science,  with  overwhelming  odds 
and  nearly  every  well-established  fact  in  the 
realms  of  nature  against  them,  their  narrow 
schemes  for  building  a  universe  and  peopling 
worlds  without  recognizing  the  intervention  of 
the  great  Being  who,  as  we  have  a  multitude  of 
reasons  for  believing,  is  the  source  of  all  power 
and  of  all  life  ?  From  that  day  to  this  we  have 
been  measurably  irreverent  in  the  presence  of 
naturalists.  Men  talk  about  the  speculations  and 
dogmatisms  of  theology,  but  even  in  their  most 
extravagant  phases  may  it  not  be  questioned 
whether  the  speculations  of  theology  are  half  so 
fallacious,  and  whether  its  dogmatisms  are  half 
so  intense  and  irrational  or  illogical,  as  those  of 
some  of  the  men  who  are  regarded  leaders  of 
scientific  thought? 

The  words  with  which  Rousseau  described  the 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  41 

philosophers  of  his  time  we  often  are  inclined  to 
apply  to  some  of  our  modern  scientific  leaders. 

".I  have  found  them,"  he  says,  "proud,  posi- 
tive, dogmatizing,  even  in  their  pretended  skep- 
ticism, knowing  everything,  proving  nothing,  and 
ridiculing  one  another.  There  is  not  one  of  them 
who,  coming  to  distinguish  truth  from  falsehood, 
would  not  prefer  his  own  error  to  the  truth  that 
is  discovered  by  another. 

"  Under  pretense  of  being  themselves  the  only 
people  enlightened,  they  imperiously  subject  us 
to  their  magisterial  decisions,  and  would  fain 
palm  upon  us,  for  the  true  reason  of  things,  the 
unintelligible  systems  they  have  erected  in  their 
own  heads,  while  they  trample  underfoot  all  that 
man  reveres." 

When,  therefore,  we  are  told  that  spontaneous 
generation  or  evolution  or  bathybius  or  monism, 
or  anything  else,  is  believed  in  by  this  distin- 
guished man  or  by  that  distinguished  man  or  by 
the  other  distinguished  man,  or  by  scores  of  dis- 
tinguished men,  we  no  longer  are  inclined  to  give 
assent  until  we  know  whether  these  "  distinguished 
men  "  are  broad  enough  to  take  in  and  deal  fairly 
with  all  the  facts  bearing  on  the  questions  in- 
volved. Do  they  attribute  transcendent  impor- 
tance to  clay  banks,  and  none  to  religion?  Do 
they  almost  worship  shells  dug  from  the  different 
strata  of  the  earth,  and  pass  heedlessly  by  the 


42  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

souls  of  men?  Do  they  patiently  study  and  an- 
alyze moonlight  and  starlight,  and  never  think  of 
pondering  the  wonderful  phenomena  of  instinct, 
intuition,  consciousness,  and  conscience?  Are 
their  eyes  ever  upon  the  visible,  with  no  thought 
of  the  invisible?  If  so,  we  withhold  assent  and 
allegiance,  and  the  more  so  since  the  pathway  of 
men  of  this  class,  from  its  beginning  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  is  strewed  with  rejected  theories  that 
once  held  sway  over  the  people.  Electricity,  for 
instance,  once  was  investigated  on  the  supposition 
that  it  is  fluid ;  then  it  was  held  to  be  force  ;  now 
it  is  regarded  as  an  energy,  convertible  into 
other  calorific  or  mechanical  energies.  This  last 
hypothesis  may  hold  for  ten  years  or  longer,  or 
only  until  to-morrow. 

From  Werner's  time  to  the  near  present,  a 
score  of  geological  hypotheses  likewise  have  been 
in  full  force,  some  of  which  now  create  a  smile.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  present  century  the  French 
Institute  enumerated  no  fewer  than  eighty  geo- 
logical theories  that  were  hostile  to  the  Bible,  but 
not  one  of  those  theories  is  held  to-day.  The 
beautiful  theory  of  Lavoisier  as  to  respiration, 
though  supported  by  many  carefully  observed 
facts,  was  exploded  in  an  hour,  and  at  the  present 
time  is  useful  only  as  a  warning  to  the  over- 
sanguine  investigator.  In  former  times  the  hy- 
pothesis that  heat  is  a  form  of  matter  was  thought 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  43 

to  be  established;  but  now  we  are  confidently 
told  that  it  is  a  mode  of  motion. 

Professor  Huxley  bravely  started  out  with  his 
theory  of  a  life-producing  bathybius,  but  soon 
discovered  his  mistake  and  abandoned  the  theory. 
Sir  William  Thomson  without  timidity  announced 
his  theory  of  the  meteoric  origin  of  life  on  the 
earth,  but  one  year  was  enough  to  silence  his  lips 
on  the  subject. 

The  once  popular  dogma  that  man  is  a  direct 
descendant  of  the  monkey  is  now  almost  univer- 
sally rejected  on  the  ground  that  the  structural 
differences  between  a  man  and  a  monkey  are 
such  that  they  develop  in  opposite  directions. 
The  monkey  baby  and  the  human  baby  may  look 
alike,  but  the  more  the  monkey  baby  is  developed 
the  less  of  a  man  and  the  more  ofa  monkey  he 
becomes. 

The  "  missing  link  "  that  came  in  to  take  the 
place  of  the  monkey,  a  sort  of  scientific  mediator 
between  man  and  monkey,  repeatedly  has  been 
discovered,  and  then  as  repeatedly  has  been  found 
not  to  be  the  missing  link  at  all,  but  something 
else  that  without  much  difficulty  is  classed  with 
existing  and  well-known  orders. 

The  discovery  of  argon  and  of  the  Roentgen  ray 
has  quite  taken  the  breath  of  many  of  our  scientific 
men,  and  will  yet  put  to  confusion  a  score  of  pet 
theories.     And  this  is  only  the  beginning. 


44  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

Have  we  not,  therefore,  the  best  of  reasons  for 
supposing  that  at  least  some  of  the  hypotheses 
now  held  by  naturalism  will  fare  no  better?  In- 
deed, the  hypothesis  of  evolution  by  selection  or 
by  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  or  by  any  other 
natural  agency  or  process,  is  at  this  very  hour 
trembling  for  its  safety,  if  it  is  not,  as  we  may  be 
able  to  show,  already  antiquated.  Hence  it  is 
clear  that  we  are  not  to  adopt  an  opinion  simply 
because  held  by  somebody  else  or  because  it  is 
current  to-day  ;  nor  is  even  the  scientist  to  adopt 
an  opinion  as  a  man  takes  his  wife,  lifelong  and 
"for  better,  for  worse,"  "in  sickness  and  in 
health."  Rights  of  quick  and  easy  divorce  must 
be  conceded  when  the  hypothetical  spouse  does 
not  comply  with  the  demands  of  the  hour. 

Professor  Huxley  suggestively  and  wisely  re- 
marks that  those  who  have  taken  an  active  part 
in  science  should  be  killed  at  sixty,  not  being 
flexible  enough  upon  arriving  at  that  age  to  yield 
to  the  advance  of  new  ideas. 
I"  Verily  the  world  is  waiting  for  a  scientific  man 
with  such  broad,  generous,  and  comprehensive 
views  as  will  enable  him  to  stand  just  a  trifle 
above  all  specialists  of  all  schools  and  of  all  ages, 
and  who  without  prejudice  can  walk  calmly  back- 
ward and  forward  among  all  treasures  of  all 
knowledge,  whether  found  in  the  material  uni- 
verse, in  the  realms  of  mind,  in  the  history  of 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  45 

providence,  or  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  scanning 
everything  closely  and  comparing  impartially, 
until  upon  his  soul  dawns  in  silent  majesty  a  con- 
clusion— the  eternal  truth  of  God. 

"  There  are  great  truths  that  pitch  their  shining  tents 
Outside  our  walls,  and  though  but  dimly  seen 
In  the  gray  dawn,  they  will  be  manifest 
When  the  light  widens  into  perfect  day." 

But  lest  we  may  leave  a  false  impression,  we 
add  that  not  all  the  high  priests  of  science  and 
philosophy  are  enemies  of  revealed  religion. 
While  such  men  as  Virchow,  Haeckel,  Bain,  and 
several  others  assert  that  certain  observed  facts 
and  phenomena  of  nature  prove  that  the  universe 
has  been  produced  by  natural  agencies,  on  the 
other  hand,  such  distinguished  men  as  the  late 
Rudolf  Hermann  Lotze,  who  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century  was  regarded  as  the  leading  philosopher  of 
Germany,  and  Wilhelm  Max  Wundt,  indisputably 
the  leading  physiologist  of  Heidelberg,  and  per- 
haps of  all  Germany,  and  Professor  Hermann 
Helmholtz,  Berlin's  most  renowned  physicist, 
together  with  some  of  the  profoundest  scholars 
elsewhere  in  Europe  and  America,  think  other- 
wise, and  from  the  same  facts  and  phenomena 
infer  that  the  universe  could  not  have  been  pro- 
duced by  natural  causes,  but  must  have  been 
brought  into  being  and  have  been  peopled  by  a 
supernatural  agency  infinitely  powerful,  infinitely 


46  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

wise,  and  infinitely  good.  There  are  more  of 
these  men  who  to-day  are  on  the  side  of  Bible 
revelation  than  perhaps  we  imagine.  If  not  re- 
pulsed they  may  be  near  making,  in  its  truest 
and  broadest  sense,  a  public  profession  of  religion. 
At  least  when  the  theologian  meets  the  physicist 
or  the  metaphysician  on  the  great  highways  of 
truth,  he  should  not  be  too  ready  to  shout,  "  In- 
fidel! "  before  it  is  known  whether  or  not  these 
men  are  at  prayer.  And  so  far  as  matters  stand 
to-day,  we  are  convinced  that  the  people  of  God 
have  nothing  to  fear  except  their  own  lack  of 
faith  and  courage. 

II.    WORKING   HYPOTHESES 

Perhaps  some  of  our  readers,  while  admitting 
that  there  is  a  lack  of  evidence  in  support  of  many 
scientific  and  philosophical  theories,  are  on  the 
point  of  replying  that  a  lack  of  evidence  does  not 
disprove  the  possibility  of  a  given  theory. 

This  is  true ;  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  lack  of 
evidence,  at  least  in  the  judgment  of  a  scientific 
mind,  will  not  allow  evolution  or  any  other 
theory  to  be  discussed  as  if  it  already  were  estab- 
lished. The  naturalist  has  an  unquestioned  right 
to  adopt  what  is  called  a  working  hypothesis,  by 
which  is  meant  a  supposition  used  temporarily  as 
a  matter  of  convenience  in  classifying  or  account- 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  ±1 

ing  for  facts  or  phenomena ;  it  very  suggestively 
has  been  called  the  "search-light  of  science." 

And  it  may  be  remarked  that  nothing  among 
men  is  more  rational  or  common  than  the  work- 
ing hypothesis.  When  the  mechanic  at  his  bench, 
or  the  farmer  in  his  field,  or  the  woman  at  her 
wheel  or  cradle,  says,  "  Now  let  us  suppose,"  they 
are  making  use  of  a  working  hypothesis  just 
as  really  as  did  Laplace  when  constructing  his 
theory  of  the  formation  of  worlds,  or  as  did  Dar- 
win when  propounding  his  scheme  of  evolution. 
But  when  the  working  hypothesis  is  employed, 
it  must  not  be  passed  among  men  for  more  than 
it  is  worth. 

There  are  a  few  simple  rules  that  should  govern 
the  use  of  this  convenient  method  of  investigation 
with  which  one  must  comply,  or  in  the  "  congress 
of  the  ages  "  he  will  be  complained  of.  We  enu- 
merate the  following:* 

First,  there  should  be  clearness  of  statement. 
Thinking  men  have  reached  the  conclusion  that, 
other  things  being  equal,  there  is  a  presumption 
in  favor  of  that  which  is  clear,  and  an  equally 
strong  presumption  against  that  which  is  unclear. 
When,  therefore,  Herbert  Spencer  complains  that 
those  who  recently  are  attacking  both  his  science 
and  his  philosophy  misunderstand  him,  he  is  ex- 

*  These  rules  are  more  fully  stated  in  the  author's  treatise  en- 
titled "  Bible  Theology  and  Modern  Thought,"  pp.  19-32. 


48  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

posing  himself  and  his  system  to  an  additional 
criticism.  "  Why  am  I  misunderstood  by  some  of 
the  acutest  minds  of  the  age?"  is  a  question  he 
well  may  ask,  and  likely  enough  he  will  find  no 
little  embarrassment  in  answering  it. 

If,  therefore,  in  these  times  the  speculative 
physicist,  the  metaphysician,  or  the  theologian 
would  gain  a  respectful  hearing,  his  working  hy- 
pothesis in  conception  and  expression  must  be 
as  free  from  obscurity  as  the  case  will  allow. 

Second,  a  working  hypothesis  is  not  verified  so 
long  as  it  rests  upon  mere  possibilities.  The  hy- 
pothesis itself  is  only  a  possibility ;  if  made  to 
rest  upon  other  possibilities,  nothing  is  gained. 
Any  number  of  possibilities  cannot  make  a  fact, 
or  even  a  probability.  The  enterprising  investi- 
gator should  have  untiring  curiosity,  inventive 
sagacity,  and  a  constructive  imagination,  but  he 
must  not  plant  his  feet  upon  conjecture  and  call 
it  a  conclusion. 

Third,  a  working  hypothesis,  to  possess  any 
considerable  weight,  must  receive  the  assent  of 
all,  or  nearly  all,  who  are  capable  of  investigating 
the  subject. 

When,  for  instance,  scores  of  men  eminent  in 
the  field  of  natural  science  do  not  see  any  reason 
for  giving  their  assent  to  the  hypothesis  of  uni- 
formity in  nature's  processes,  or  to  that  of  evolu- 
tion as  announced  by  Mr.  Darwin  and  defended 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  49 

by  Mr.  Spencer  and  others — indeed,  when  men 
who  are  abundantly  capable  of  judging  of  these 
matters  absolutely  reject  these  hypotheses — then 
we  must  conclude  that  for  the  present  such  hy- 
potheses should  have  no  weight  except  that  ac- 
corded to  other  very  questionable  speculations, 
even  though  they  have  been  adopted  by  men  of 
great  distinction. 

Fourth,  an  hypothesis  which  cannot  account 
for  most  of  the  phenomena  under  examination 
adequately,  and  without  the  exclusion,  distortion, 
or  mutilation  of  correlated  data,  is  to  be  rejected. 
This  rule,  in  substance,  is  clearly  enjoined  in  Sir 
William  Hamilton's  discussion  of  hypotheses,  and, 
though  rigid,  is  nevertheless  adopted  by  all  the 
more  prudent  inquirers.  The  comment  made  by 
one  whose  ability  cannot  be  questioned  is  that 
"  the  failure  to  explain  one  single  well-observed 
fact  is  sufficient  to  cast  doubt  upon  or  even  to 
subvert  any  hypothesis." 

Fifth,  no  hypothesis  should  be  adopted  until  it 
is  ascertained  that  at  the  moment  of  its  adoption 
no  other  answers  equally  well  the  requirements 
of  the  case ;  nor  should  it  be  retained  a  moment 
after  it  fails  to  explain  better  than  any  other  the 
observed  and  related  phenomena.  This  rule  was 
suggested  by  Dr.  Thomas  Sydenham  in  his  the- 
ory of  medical  practice.  Both  John  Locke  and 
Francis  Bacon  in  their  philosophy  approved  it. 


50  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Professor  Tyndall,  in  his  scientific  investiga- 
tions, theoretically  adopts  it,  declaring  that "  with- 
out verification,  a  theoretic  conception  is  a  mere 
figment  of  the  intellect.  If  deductions  be  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  facts  we  accept  the  theory ;  if 
in  opposition  the  theory  is  given  up." 

As  would  be  expected,  therefore,  every  path 
of  investigation  is  strewed  from  its  beginning  to 
its  end  with  rejected  hypotheses.  And  the  path 
of  science  shows  as  much  wreckage  of  this  sort 
as  does  that  of  philosophy  or  theology. 

Sixth,  the  building  of  arguments  upon  a  work- 
ing hypothesis,  as  though  it  already  were  estab- 
lished, is  fallacious.  The  temptation  to  break 
this  rule,  whose  importance  has  been  recognized 
by  every  writer  on  the  laws  of  reasoning  from 
the  time  of  Aristotle  to  the  present,  must  be  very 
strong;  for  some  of  our  leading  scientists  time 
and  again  are  found  transferring,  quietly  and 
without  any  apology,  their  working  hypotheses 
from  the  field  of  inquiry  to  that  of  certitude. 

"  We  have  reason  to  suppose,"  etc.,  says  Her- 
bert Spencer,  while  building  his  constructive 
philosophy.  Now  that  is  a  legitimate  statement, 
and  is  a  lawful  use  of  an  hypothesis.  But,  with 
nothing  new  presented  and  in  the  very  next  par- 
agraph, he  says,  "  If,  then,  we  see,"  etc.  (that 
such  and  such  is  the  case),  then  such  and  such 
conclusions  follow. 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  51 

In  a  court-room  one  lawyer  would  say  to  an- 
other that  such  reasoning  is  either  careless  or 
dishonest. 

So,  likewise,  Professor  Tyndall  makes  the  same 
mistake  when  he  says,  "We  should,  on  philosoph- 
ical grounds,  expect  to  find,"  etc.  (certain  re- 
sults). But  in  the  next  sentence  his  expectation, 
with  nothing  additional  presented,  becomes  a 
certainty,  and  he  continues,  "  This  relation  being 
thus  invariable,  therefore,"  etc.  (such  and  such 
conclusions  follow). 

Final  conclusions  cannot  rest  upon  mere  ex- 
pectations, is  the  most  respectful  reply  that  such 
reasoning  or  statement  deserves. 

Dr.  Friedrich  Karl  Biichner  announces  that 
"  matter  is  the  origin  of  all  that  exists,"  and  that 
"  all  natural  and  mental  forces  are  inherent  in  it "  ; 
that  "nature,  the  all-gendering  and  all-devouring, 
is  its  own  beginning  and  end,  birth  and  death" ; 
that  "  she  produced  man  by  her  own  power,  and 
takes  him  again  "  ;  that  "  there  are  no  other  forces 
in  nature  besides  the  physical,  the  chemical,  and 
the  mechanical."  He  then  proceeds  to  reason 
as  if  these  assertions  were  established  facts,  and 
thence  infers  his  system  of  atheism. 

The  reply  is  that  these  claims  are  not  estab- 
lished, never  have  been  established,  and,  what  is 
more,  from  the  nature  of  the  case  they  never  can 
be  established.     He  and  all  his  followers,  there- 


52  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

fore,  are  standing  on  assumptions,  not  on  sub- 
stantiate. 

The  frequency  with  which  this  fallacious  method 
of  investigation  and  reasoning  is  met  renders  the 
observation  of  the  German  philosopher  Leibnitz 
very  pertinent :  "  We  have  many  good  books  and 
good  thoughts  scattered  about  here  and  there, 
but  we  scarce  ever  come  to  establishments." 

Thre  most  deplorable  violations  of  this  rule  take 
place  when  some  hypothesis  of  a  first-class  in- 
vestigator is  adopted  as  an  established  fact  by  a 
second-class  dabbler.  Professor  Huxley,  for  illus- 
tration, suggests  the  following  hypotheses :  "  Mat- 
ter is  all-powerful  and  all-sufficient ;  "  "  man  is 
only  a  sentient  automaton ;  "  "  protoplasm  is  the 
organ  of  all  life ;  "  "  protoplasm  is  a  molecular 
machine,  the  total  results  of  the  working  of  which, 
or  its  vital  phenomena,  depend,  on  the  one  hand, 
on  its  construction,  and,  on  the  other,  upon  the 
energy  applied  to  it." 

The  professor  then  attempts  to  explain  upon 
these  hypotheses  the  various  phenomena  of  the 
physical  universe.  And  we  find  no  fault  with 
the  attempt.  But  forthwith  some  unfledged 
skeptic  begins  to  reason  as  though  these  assump- 
tions were  established  truths.  He  says,  "  Matter, 
according  to  modern  scientific  men,  is  all-power- 
ful ;  man  is  an  automaton ;  protoplasm  is  all-pro- 
ductive.    These  are  facts  established  by  modern 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  53 

science ;  therefore  there  is  no  God  in  the  universe, 
and  human  responsibility  and  accountability  to  a 
Supreme  Being  are  whimsies." 

What  troubles  us  most  in  all  this  false  reasoning 
is  that  many  young  men  have  lost  their  heads  and 
their  Christian  faith,  and  then  have  suffered  a 
wreck  of  character  by  following  these  utterly  false 
and  pernicious  methods,  that  have  been  employed 
by  those  who  should  have  been  more  careful  of 
their  example. 

And  all  the  more  inexcusable  is  it  for  one  to 
trust  one's  faith  to  the  opinions  of  distinguished 
scientists,  since  often  they  confess  themselves  to 
be  in  darkness.  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  for  instance, 
is  of  the  opinion  that  man  was  developed  from 
some  of  the  monkey  family,  but  makes  the  ac- 
knowledgment that  there  is  no  tangible  evidence 
for  that  opinion.  He  thinks  evidence  may  be 
found  sometime  "  in  the  unexplored  geological 
regions  of  central  Africa." 

Dr.  Barden  Powell  believes  that  there  is  a 
chain  of  development  extending  through  an 
enormous  period,  but  confesses  that  link  after 
link  at  different  points  in  the  chain  is  wanting, 
and  that  conditions  are  such  as  to  "  preclude  us 
from  knowing  anything  about  them  whatever." 

When  we  ask  Mr.  Darwin  about  the  evolution 
of  the  battery  of  the  electric  eel,  or  about  the 
evolution  of  the  eye  of  the  cuttlefish,  or  of  the 


54  EVOLUTION    OR   CREATION? 

eye  or  ear  of  a  human  being,  matters  that  his 
theory  without  much  hesitation  ought  to  explain, 
he  hastily  takes  refuge  under  a  confession  of 
ignorance,  replying  that  "  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive by  what  steps  these  wondrous  organs  have 
been  produced." 

And  when  we  ask  him  for  the  missing  links  he 
sends  us,  not,  as  Lyell  does,  to  central  Africa, 
but  to  "  undiscovered  [and  undiscoverable]  fossil- 
iferous  strata  below  the  Silurian."  And  when  we 
ask  him  a  little  more  specifically  about  the  origin 
of  the  species,  and  how  four  or  five  primeval 
forms  or  original  germs  could  have  developed 
into  all  the  various  forms  of  life  that  have  existed 
and  that  now  exist,  he  replies,  "  Our  ignorance 
of  the  laws  of  variation  is  profound." 

And  yet  we  hear  on  every  hand  that  the  hy- 
potheses of  naturalism  are  established! 

We  have  presented  the  foregoing  rules  and 
illustrations  partly  to  show  that  much  of  what 
has  been  circulated  among  the  people  under  the 
name  of  science,  when  tested  by  correct  principles 
of  reasoning,  is  not  science  at  all,  but  is  only  the 
cheapest,  though  sometimes  very  perilous,  talk. 

So  long  as  the  naturalist,  in  harmony  with  his 
working  hypotheses,  gives  attention  to  arranging 
and  labeling  the  phenomena  falling  within  his 
department  of  study,  he  does  well.  It  is  only 
when,  with  a  half-filled  cabinet, — nay,  with  not 


DOGMATISMS  AND  HYPOTHESES  55 

one  shelf  filled, — he  begins  to  draw  universal  de- 
ductions that  we  object.  It  is  not  with  science 
that  we  find  fault,  but  with  scientific  error.  As 
we  already  have  said,  investigation  by  hypothesis 
is  universal,  legitimate,  useful,  and  delightful ; 
and  even  the  hypotheses  of  naturalism  within 
their  legitimate  bounds  need  not  be  treated  to 
scoffs  and  sneers.  But  when  the  different  hypoth- 
eses of  investigators  are  vaguely  conceived  and 
presented,  or  when  they  are  supported  chiefly  by 
negative,  conjectural,  or  ex-parte  evidence,  or 
when  they  are  converted  into  citadels  from  which 
attacks  are  made  upon  the  Christian  religion, 
then  suspicions  are  aroused  that  naturalism,  in 
this  deliberate  misuse  of  hypothesis,  is  lacking, 
as  already  suggested,  in  either  wisdom  or  honesty. 


CHAPTER   III 
Origin  of  Life — Naturalistic  Views 
i.  spontaneous  generation 

LOOKING  over  the  surface  of  the  earth,  we 
discover  that  it  has  rivers,  lakes,  and  oceans;  it 
has  hills,  mountains,  islands,  and  continents ;  it 
has  a  great  variety  of  vegetable  life  and  an  equally 
great  variety  of  animal  life.  But  no  one  at  all 
familiar  with  modern  science  can  have  the  least 
doubt  that  there  was  a  time  when  nothing  of  the 
kind  existed ;  there  were  neither  rivers,  lakes, 
oceans,  hills,  mountains,  islands,  continents,  nor 
vegetable  or  animal  life  in  any  of  their  present 
varied  forms  or  in  any  other  material  or  visible 
forms.  The  skilled  scientist,  however  extreme  his 
non-belief,  or  however  agnostic  or  atheistic  his 
hypothesis,  unhesitating,  confesses  that,  in  tracing 
the  history  of  our  planet  through  its  different 
geological  stages,  at  length  he  comes  to  a  time 
when  man  was  not.  After  reaching  certain 
boundary  lines  in  geological  history,  not  a  bone 
nor  a  solitary  relic  of  man  can  be  found. 
56 


ORIGIN  OF  LIFE— NATURALISTIC   VIEWS      57 

It  also  is  discovered  that  the  atmosphere  and 
the  surface  conditions  of  the  earth  at  one  time 
absolutely  precluded  the  possibility  of  human  life. 
Indeed,  geological  history  can  be  traced  back 
until  a  period  is  reached  when  not  only  human, 
but  animal  life  of  every  kind,  was  unknown  on  the 
earth's  surface.  Not  a  bird  flew  through  the  air, 
not  a  worm  or  an  insect  burrowed  in  the  soil. 
And  then  a  time  yet  earlier  is  discovered,  when 
the  traces  of  only  the  lower  forms  of  vegetable 
life  are  found,  and  a  time  earlier  still,  when  they 
too  did  not  exist.  But  long  before  these  eons 
there  was  a  time  when  the  earth's  surface  was 
molten  and  plastic  like  wax,  round,  smooth,  and 
hot  as  a  globule  of  molten  lead,  dropped  through 
the  atmosphere  to  cool.  The  earth  has  been 
red-hot,  white-hot,  blazing-hot,  and  for  almost 
innumerable  ages  was  nothing  except  a  mass  of 
intensely  illuminated  gas.  But  long  before  that 
there  was  a  time  when — but  we  need  go  no 
further ;  naturalism  must  stop  there.  It  can  take 
no  additional  step  without  coming  into  the  pres- 
ence of  an  eternal  and  invisible  Power  that  makes 
for  orderly  arrangement  and  adjustment;  and 
that  discovery  naturalistic  science  does  not  care 
to  make. 

We  may  add,  however,  that  it  is  an  irrefutable 
scientific  induction  that  what  is  true  of  our  planet 
is  essentially  true  of  every  other  planet  and  of 


58  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

every  star;  that  is,  there  was  a  time  when  there 
were  no  material  objects  in  the  physical  universe 
except  such  as  were  clothed  with  glowing  flames 
of  fire.  And  there  can  be  no  disproof  of  the 
statement  that  there  was  a  time  earlier  still  when 
there  was  nothing  in  the  infinitudes  of  space  ex- 
cept the  thought  and  purpose  of  an  invisible 
somewhat  which  we  may  call  God.  And  when 
it  pleased  him  he  purposed  and  spake,  and  as- 
tronomical and  then  geological  history  began. 

In  geological  history  an  era  at  length  was  reached 
when  the  earth  cooled  off,  the  waters  condensed, 
dry  land  appeared,  and  days  and  seasons  were  es- 
tablished. In  a  word,  the  earth  became  such  that 
vegetable  and  animal  life  and  the  human  family 
could  have  thrived  if  only  they  were  placed  here. 

The  questions,  therefore,  that  confront  us  are 
these :  If  life,  vegetable  or  animal,  is  eternal,  or 
if  it  existed  before  the  worlds  were  formed,  how 
could  it  have  passed  through  the  fires  of  the 
earth  and  of  the  physical  universe  without  having 
all  its  vitality  scorched  and  burned  out?  If  it 
has  not  always  existed,  how  could  it,  even  in  its 
lowest  forms,  make  its  first  appearance  in  the 
physical  universe? 

For  two  centuries  or  more  the  scientific  world 
has  been  divided  on  this  subject  of  the  origin  of 
life,  for  the  larger  part,  into  two  schools ;  the  one 
contending  that  life  is  self-originating,  the  other 


ORIGIN  OF  LIFE— NATURALISTIC   VIEWS      59 

that  it  can  come  only  from  preexisting  life.  For 
a  long  time  the  first  of  these  schools  led  the  other 
in  both  the  number  and  ability  of  its  advocates. 
As  the  matter  recently  has  been  stated,  "  Spon- 
taneous generation,  now  rejected  as  heresy  by 
both  theology  and  science,  was  once  orthodox 
with  both." 

The  question  was  brought  to  its  severest  test 
about  twenty- five  years  ago,  when  Dr.  Henry  C. 
Bastian,  an  eminent  London  pathologist,  began  a 
series  of  very  interesting  experiments.  He  reached 
a  conclusion  which  was  stated  in  his  book  entitled 
"  Beginnings  of  Life  "  in  these  words :  "  Both 
observation  and  experiment  unmistakably  testify 
to  the  fact  that  living  matter  is  constantly  being 
formed  de  novo,  in  obedience  to  the  same  laws 
and  tendencies  which  determine  all  the  more 
simple  chemical  combinations." 

On  the  strength  of  the  doctor's  experiments, 
and  by  reason  of  conclusions  reached  by  him  and 
by  others,  the  question  of  the  origin  of  life  for  a 
time  seemed  settled.  It  was  agreed  that,  as  a  liquid 
can  change  into  crystals,  so  dead  matter,  under 
certain  conditions,  can  change  into  living  matter.* 

Professor  Tyndall  and  Dr.  William  Henry 
Dallinger,  being  not  quite  satisfied  with  the  fore- 

*  With  Dr.  Bastian  stood  three  other  noted  men,  Pasteur, 
Child,  and  Wyman,  as  defenders  of  spontaneous  generation  on 
experimental  grounds. 


60  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

going  conclusions,  repeated  several  of  Dr.  Bas- 
tian's  experiments,  making  many  additional  ones, 
and  using  far  greater  precautions  than  those  em- 
ployed by  any  of  their  predecessors.  Under 
these  new  tests  and  experiments  the  attempt  to 
produce  life  spontaneously  absolutely  failed. 

After  many  critical  and  laborious  experiments 
made  among  the  higher  Alps,  Professor  Tyndall 
concluded  an  address  on  the  "  Origin  of  Life," 
delivered  before  the  Royal  Institute  of  London, 
with  these  words : 

"  This  discourse  is  but  the  summing  up  of  eight 
months  of  incessant  labor.  From  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  the  inquiry  there  is  not  a  shadow 
of  evidence  in  favor  of  spontaneous  generation. 
There  is,  on  the  contrary,  overwhelming  evidence 
against  it ;  but  do  not  carry  away  with  you  the 
notion,  sometimes  erroneously  ascribed  to  me, 
that  I  deem  spontaneous  generation  'impossible,' 
or  that  I  wish  to  limit  the  power  of  matter  in  re- 
lation to  life.  My  views  on  this  subject  ought  to 
be  well  known.  But  possibility  is  one  thing  and 
proof  another;  and  when  in  our  day  I  seek  for 
experimental  evidence  of  the  transformation  of 
the  non-living  into  the  living,  I  am  led  inexorably 
to  the  conclusion  that  no  evidence  exists,  and 
that  in  the  lowest,  as  in  the  highest  organized 
creatures,  the  method  of  nature  is  that  life  shall 
be  the  issue  of  antecedent  life." 


ORIGIN  OF  LIFE— NATURALISTIC   VIEWS       61 

Later,  in  an  article  in  the  "  Nineteenth  Cen- 
tury," Professor  Tyndall  reiterated  his  opinion 
with  these  words :  "  I  affirm  that  no  shred  of 
trustworthy  experimental  evidence  exists  to  prove 
that  life  in  our  day  has  ever  appeared  indepen- 
dently of  antecedent  life." 

Professor  Huxley,  in  his  article  on  "  Biology  "  in 
the  "Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  is  almost  as  em- 
phatic as  Professor  Tyndall :  "  Of  the  causes  which 
have  led  to  the  origination  of  living  matter,  it  may 
be  said  that  we  know  absolutely  nothing;  .  .  . 
the  present  state  of  knowledge  furnishes  us  with 
no  link  between  the  living  and  the  non-living." 

Professor  Lionel  S.  Beale,  in  an  address  deliv- 
ered before  the  Microscopical  Society  when  taking 
the  chair  as  president,  employed  this  language : 
"  The  present  state  of  knowledge  justifies  the 
conclusion  that  no  form  of  living  matter  existing 
at  present,  nor  any  which  existed  in  the  past, 
directly  originated  from  non-living  matter  or  in 
any  way  derived  its  powers  or  properties  from 
the  non-living." 

Professors  Balfour  Stewart  and  Peter  G.  Tait, 
joint  authors  of  an  anonymous  treatise  entitled 
"  The  Unseen  Universe,"  speak  emphatically  and 
without  contradiction  for  the  scientific  world 
when  they  say  that  "  all  really  scientific  experi- 
ence tells  us  that  life  can  be  produced  from  a  liv- 
ing antecedent  only." 


62  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Dr.  J.  H.  Stirling,  in  his  book,  "  As  Regards 
Protoplasm,"  is  scarcely  less  emphatic:  "We  are 
in  the  presence  of  the  one  incommunicable  gulf, 
the  gulf  of  all  gulfs,  that  gulf  which  Mr.  Huxley's 
protoplasm  is  as  powerless  to  efface  as  any  other 
material  expedient  that  has  ever  been  suggested 
since  the  eyes  of  men  first  looked  into  it — the 
mighty  gulf  between  death  and  life." 

Says  Dr.  Rudolf  Virchow,  in  his  treatise 'en- 
titled "  Freedom  of  Science  in  the  Modern  State," 
"  Whoever  calls  to  mind  the  lamentable  failure  of 
all  the  attempts  made  very  recently  to  discover  a 
decided  support  for  the  generatio  cequivoc  in  the 
lower  forms  of  transition  from  the  inorganic  to 
the  organic  world  will  feel  it  doubly  serious  to 
demand  that  this  theory,  so  utterly  discredited, 
should  be  in  any  form  accepted  as  the  basis  of 
our  views  of  life." 

Sir  William  Thomson,  in  his  address  upon  tak- 
ing the  presidential  chair  of  the  British  Associa- 
tion at  Edinburgh,  used  this  language :  "  A  very 
ancient  speculation,  still  clung  to  by  many  natu- 
ralists, supposes  that,  under  certain  meteorological 
conditions  very  different  from  the  present,  dead 
matter  may  have  run  together  or  crystallized  or 
fermented  into  '  germs  of  life  '  or  '  organic  cells  ' 
or  '  protoplasm.'  But  science  brings  a  vast  mass 
of  inductive  evidence  against  this  hypothesis  of 
spontaneous  generation,  as  you  have  heard  from 
my  predecessor  in  the  presidential  chair.      Care- 


ORIGIN  OF  LIFE— NATURALISTIC   VIEWS       63 

ful  enough  scrutiny  has,  in  every  case  up  to  the 
present  day,  discovered  life  as  antecedent  to  life. 
Dead  matter  cannot  become  living  without  com- 
ing under  the  influence  of  matter  previously  alive. 
This  seems  to  me  as  sure  a  teaching  of  science  as 
the  law  of  gravitation." 

The  words  of  Dr.  Dubois  Raymond  are  no  less 
to  the  point :  "  It  is  absolutely  and  forever  in- 
conceivable that  a  number  of  carbon,  hydrogen, 
nitrogen,  and  oxygen  atoms  should  be  otherwise 
than  indifferent  as  to  their  own  position  and  mo- 
tion, past,  present,  or  future." 

Mr.  Darwin,  too,  always  insisted  that  sponta- 
neous generation  can  account  for  nothing,  and  that 
creative  intelligence  must  have  placed  upon  the 
earth  the  five  or  six  primal  germs  of  all  extinct 
and  existing  vegetable  and  animal  life. 

The  following  is  Professor  Agassiz's  suggestive 
profession  of  faith :  "  All  these  beginnings  of 
animal  life  do  not  exist  in  consequence  of  the 
continued  agency  of  physical  causes,  but  have 
made  their  successive  appearances  upon  the 
earth  by  the  immediate  intervention  of  the 
Creator." 

To  these  men  who  deny  that  there  is  any  evi- 
dence of  spontaneous  generation,  and  who  declare 
with  Darwin  and  Agassiz  in  favor  of  supernatural 
interposition,  are  to  be  added  also  Leibnitz,  Davy, 
Herschel,  Faraday,  Forbes,  Carpenter,  Dawson, 
Gray,  Dana,  Helmholtz,  Verdt,  Lotze,  and  many 


64  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

others  among  the  profoundest  thinkers  of  Europe 
and  America. 

Such  is  our  authority  for  saying  that  the  hy- 
pothesis which  claims  that  non-living  matter  may 
be  endowed  with  life,  without  the  aid  of  already 
existing  life,  is  utterly  without  foundation.  These 
eminent  scientists  and  philosophers,  after  the  most 
thorough  experiments  and  tests,  assure  us  that 
neither  additions  nor  subtractions  nor  multiplica- 
tions nor  divisions,  nor  manipulations  of  any  other 
sort,  ever  have  been  able  to  give  life  and  con- 
sciousness to  dead  matter.  Nor  has  chemical, 
electrical,  mechanical,  or  any  other  force  ever 
been  known  to  change  into  vital  force.  "  Vital 
force  alone  can  produce  vital  force,"  is  a  modern 
scientific  dictum. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  as  sunlight  that  those  who 
are  trying  to  build  a  superstructure  upon  the 
theory  of  spontaneous  generation  have  to-day 
not  a  shadow  of  foundation.  They  build  in  and 
upon  vacuum  who  exclude  from  the  universe  a 
living  One  who  precedes  all  forms  of  existing 
life,  and  who  gives  life  to  all  things  and  to  all 
beings  that  are  endowed  with  it. 

II.    BATHYBIUS    AND    ITS    KINDRED 

In  speculative  matters  one  failure  often  precip- 
itates others  to  such  extent  that  theories  which 


ORIGIN  OF  LIFE— NATURALISTIC   VIEWS      65 

on  a  given  day  are  rated  as  perfectly  solvent  the 
next  day  are  plunged  into  irretrievable  bank- 
ruptcy. Hence  the  disasters  that  have  overtaken 
spontaneous  generation  not  only  have  brought  to 
it  misfortune,  but,  as  might  be  expected,  have 
played  havoc  with  other  atheistic  schemes  and 
agencies  devised  for  peopling  with  life  the  earth 
and  the  universe. 

We  may  call  attention  to  a  few  of  these  abor- 
tive life-producing  devices. 

Sir  William  Thomson  threw  out  the  suggestion 
that  in  "  vortex-atoms  "  is  to  be  found  the  origin 
of  the  universe.  Professor  Friedrich  Hoffmann 
surmised  that  there  is  a  "  productive  vital  fluid  " 
of  such  potency  as  to  bring  into  existence  origi- 
nal life-germs;  once  having  these,  the  universe, 
as  is  claimed,  easily  can  be  peopled  with  vegetable 
and  animal  life.  Professor  William  K.  Clifford 
affirmed  that  "  cosmic  emotion  "  is  the  basis  of 
life.  Professor  August  Weismann  made  "  germ- 
plasim  "  the  creator  of  things.  Professor  Edward 
Drinker  Cope  solves  all  the  difficulties  of  life's 
beginnings  by  "  bathmism  "  or  "  growth-force." 
For  a  time  M.  Pouchet  was  sure  that  "  proliger- 
ous  pellicles  "  are  the  source  of  life.  Dr.  Bastian 
exalted  to  the  same  eminence  "  plastid  particles," 
and  Professor  C.  F.  Miiller  delegated  to  "  monas  " 
the  same  high  office.  M.  M.  Ferris  and  Professor 
Rudolf  Albert  Kolliker  introduced  the  world  to 


66  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

his  Majesty  "  parthenogenesis,"  while  others  have 
asked  us  to  worship  "pangenesis." 

"  Bathybius "  is  another  of  these  celebrated 
characters  that  a  few  years  ago  was  raised  into 
considerable  notoriety.  It  was  imported  to  this 
country  and  introduced  to  the  citizens  of  New 
York  by  Professor  Huxley  in  his  lectures  de- 
livered there  in  1876.  Bathybius,  as  described 
by  its  godfather,  "  is  a  sheet  of  gelatinous  living 
matter  enveloping  the  whole  earth  beneath  the 
seas.  ...  It  is  self-formed  and  is  the  foundation 
of  life." 

It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  Professor 
Huxley  never  saw  bathybius,  and  he  never  saw 
anybody  else  that  ever  saw  it.  On  second  thought, 
men  began  to  smile  at  it.  Professor  St.  George 
Mivart  at  length  began  to  poke  it  with  his  scien- 
tific stick,  and  found  it  to  be,  he  said,  nothing  but 
a  "sea-mare's  nest."  A  little  later  its  distin- 
guished author  forsook  the  thing  and  left  it  in  the 
bottom  of  the  sea. 

Without  the  use  of  any  of  the  foregoing  tech- 
nical terms,  but  with  persistent  and  tiresome  mo- 
notony, Dr.  Buchner  tried  to  account  for  the 
universe  on  the  supposed  inherent  powers  of 
"  matter  "  and  of  "  nature."  "  Matter,"  he  says, 
"  is  the  origin  of  all  that  exists ;  all  natural  and 
mental  forces  are  inherent  in  it." 

Now  all  these  several  terms  sound  well  enough, 


ORIGIN  OF  LIFE— NATURALISTIC   VIEWS       67 

but  it  is  discovered  that,  without  spontaneous 
generation  to  produce  what  they  are  supposed  to 
represent,  we  are  left  precisely  where  we  were 
before  these  different  words  were  coined  into 
speech.  They  are  forceless  and  scientifically 
useless  without  spontaneous  generation.  As  al- 
ready suggested,  the  moment  that  spontaneous 
generation  made  its  surrender,  that  moment  all 
other  atheistic  theories  of  the  origin  of  life  were 
strangled  or  beheaded ;  and  it  is  strange  that  our 
scientific  men  have  not  made  this  discovery.  One 
might  just  as  well  pin  his  faith  to  the  recently 
discovered  basic  element,  argon,  or  to  the  more 
recently  discovered  marvelous  cathode  ray,  pro- 
nouncing either  of  them  to  be  the  missing  link 
between  dead  matter  and  living  matter,  as  to  at- 
tempt to  account  for  life  through  vortex-atoms, 
bathybius,  or  any  of  their  kindred. 

And  it  also  should  be  observed  that  all  these 
claims  of  naturalists  have  been  nothing  but  as- 
sertions. They  are  not  entitled  even  to  the  rank 
of  an  hypothesis.  And  if  they  were,  it  should  be 
kept  in  mind  that  hypothesis  is  not  proof.  Men 
may  tilt  hypothesis  and  assertion  against  hypoth- 
esis and  assertion  until  doomsday,  with  no  result 
save  simply  that  with  which  they  started.  And 
is  not  the  common  sense  of  humanity  likely  to 
look  at  length  upon  all  these  atheistic  theorizings 
as  indicative  of  an  approach  to  some  sort  of  logi- 


68  EVOLUTION  Ok  CREATION? 

cal  imbecility?  Or,  to  speak  with  a  little  more 
respect,  does  it  not  all  seem  very  much  as  James 
Martineau  says :  "  The  history  of  knowledge 
abounds  with  instances  of  men  who,  with  the 
highest  merit  in  particular  walks,  have  combined 
with  it  a  curious  incompetency"? 

III.   BIOPLASM 

Because  a  bad  use  has  been  made  of  this  word 
we  allow  it  to  detain  us  for  a  moment.  In  no 
respect,  however,  should  it  be  classed  with  the 
preceding  list  of  nondescripts,  for  what  it  repre- 
sents is  something  that  in  its  make-up  and  work 
is  marvelous  and  startling — a  something  with 
which  a  believer  in  Bible  theology  should  be  on 
good  terms. 

The  primal  germs  of  life,  animal  and  vegetable, 
are  called  bioplasts ;  and,  as  has  been  well  said, 
"  Oak  and  palm,  worm  and  man,  all  start  in  life 
together. "  In  the  embryo  they  are  indistinguish- 
able, and  in  their  beginnings  are  a  simple  sub- 
stance resembling  in  appearance  the  white  of  an 
egg.  Chemically  they  are  compounded  of  carbon, 
hydrogen,  oxygen,  and  nitrogen.  Says  Professor 
Lionel  S.  Beale,  in  his  work  entitled  "  Bioplasm," 
"  Neither  by  studying  bioplasm  under  the  micro- 
scope, nor  by  any  kind  of  physical  or  chemical  in- 
vestigation known,  can  we  form  any  notion  of  the 


ORIGIN  OF  LIFE— NATURALISTIC   VIEWS      69 

nature  of  the  substance  which  is  to  be  formed  by 
the  bioplast,  or  what  will  be  the  ordinary  results 
of  its  life  and  work." 

In  his  "  Lay  Sermons "  Professor  Huxley, 
speaking  of  bioplasm,  says,  "  It  is  the  formal  basis 
of  all  life.  It  is  the  clay  of  the  potter.  Beast 
and  fowl,  reptile  and  fish,  mollusk,  worm,  and 
polyp,  are  all  composed  of  structural  units  of  the 
same  character ;  namely,  masses  of  bioplasm  with 
a  nucleus."  And  later  the  professor,  after  giving 
the  most  painstaking  study  to  this  subject,  tells 
us  what  he  observed  while  watching  through  his 
microscope  the  performances  of  a  bit  of  this  life- 
stuff.  "  Strange  possibilities  lie  dormant  in  that 
semi-fluid  globule.  Let  a  moderate  supply  of 
warmth  reach  its  watery  cradle,  and  the  plastic 
matter  undergoes  changes  so  rapid  and  yet  so 
steady  and  purpose-like  in  their  succession  that 
one  can  only  compare  them  to  those  operated  by 
a  skilled  modeler  upon  a  formless  lump  of  clay. 
As  with  an  invisible  trowel,  the  mass  is  divided 
and  subdivided  into  smaller  and  smaller  portions 
until  it  is  reduced  to  an  aggregation  of  granules 
not  too  large  to  build  withal  the  finest  fabrics  of 
the  nascent  organism.  And  then  it  is  as  if  a 
delicate  finger  traced  out  the  line  to  be  occupied 
by  the  spinal  column  and  molded  the  contour  of 
the  body ;  pinched  up  the  head  at  one  end,  the 
tail  at  the  other,  and  fastened  flank  and  limb 


70  EVOLUTlOti  OR  CREATION? 

into  due  proportions  in  so  artistic  a  way  that, 
after  watching  the  process  by  the  hour,  one  is 
almost  involuntarily  possessed  by  the  notion  that 
some  more  suitable  aid  to  vision  than  an  achro- 
matic would  show  the  hidden  artist,  with  his 
manipulation  to  perfect  his  work." 

The  professor  might  have  added  that  bioplasts 
never  change  their  occupations,  but  always  con- 
duct themselves  upon  the  strictest  principles  of 
division  of  labor.  In  the  unborn  human  body, 
for  instance,  some  of  the  bioplasts  are  at  work 
building  muscular  tissue ;  others  are  construct- 
ing bone ;  others  are  manufacturing  nerves ;  others 
are  building  arteries  and  sinews,  eyes  and  ears; 
and  when  properly  fashioned  the  child  is  born. 
On  through  babyhood,  childhood,  youth,  and 
middle  life,  these  indefatigable  workers  continue 
their  respective  tasks,  painting  the  rose  on  the 
cheek,  giving  the  sparkle  to  the  eye,  and  con- 
structing a  brain  laboratory  in  which  are  evolved 
all  the  dreams  of  fancy,  all  the  conceptions  of 
poets,  and  all  the  thunders  of  oratory  heard  in 
the  world.  Such  bioplasts  are  gods!  Ah,  but, 
poor  things!  they  die  and  never  rise  from  the 
dead. 

At  this  point  three  things  should  be  noticed: 
first,  bioplasts  build  in  what  is  called  "  coordina- 
tion of  parts,"  with  constant  reference  of  means 
to  ends,  thus  rigidly  obeying  the  two  great  laws 


ORIGIN  OP  LIFE— NATURALISTIC   V1EIVS       71 

of  organic  beings,  "unity  of  type"  and  "adap- 
tation to  ordained  conditions  of  life  and  existence. ' ' 
In  this  persistent  loyalty  to  unity  of  type  the 
whole  family  of  bioplasts  is  the  inveterate  foe  of 
the  entire  scheme  of  evolution.  So  far  as  we  can 
judge,  bioplasts  are  ever  trying  to  prevent  any 
change  of  the  individual  type  on  which  they 
work. 

The  second  fact  of  importance  is  that  this  life- 
stuff  called  bioplasm  never  has  life  unless  touched 
by  an  already  existing  life.  The  plant  bioplast  is 
able  to  convert  carbonic  acid,  water,  and  ammonia 
into  life-stuff;  but  it  must  be  a  living  plant  bio- 
plast that  touches  these  chemicals  ;  otherwise  they 
remain  lifeless.  The  animal  bioplast  is  able  to 
convert  vegetable  and  animal  products  into  living 
tissue ;  but  it  must  be  a  living  animal  bioplast 
that  touches  these  materials ;  otherwise  there  is 
no  transformation  from  dead  to  living  matter. 

The  third  fact,  and  one  that  inevitably  follows 
from  the  other  two,  is  that  every  particle  of  life- 
stuff,  vegetable  or  animal,  that  now  exists  or  that 
ever  has  existed  points  back  with  an  index-finger 
inflexible  as  steel  to  an  invisible  but  infinitely  in- 
telligent source  of  life.  And  this  source  of  life, 
without  apology  to  atheistic  science,  we  may  con- 
tinue to  call  God. 


CHAPTER    IV 
Hypothesis  of  Evolution 

i.  its  history 

The  hypothesis  of  evolution,  also  called  the  de- 
velopment theory,  teaches  that  the  universe  as 
it  now  exists  is  the  result  of  an  immense  number 
of  changes  constituting  a  progression  that  is 
somewhat  like  the  unfolding  of  a  plant  from  a 
seed,  or  of  an  animal  from  a  life-germ ;  and,  start- 
ing with  a  few  original  life-forms,  the  theory  of 
evolution  teaches  that  all  the  various  types  and 
species  of  plants  and  animals  in  an  orderly  way 
have  been  developed,  reaching  at  last  their  cul- 
mination in  man. 

This  view  of  the  evolution  of  things  is,  however, 
far  from  being  a  recent  speculation.  The  old 
Egyptian  myth  that  all  things  sprang  from  a 
mundane  egg,  and  the  teachings  of  the  early 
Greek  philosophers  that  matter  originally  sprang 
from  water  or  from  a  fluid  state,  and  that  plants, 
animals,  and  worlds  came  from  atoms  which  are 
72 


HYPOTHESIS   OF  EVOLUTION  73 

infinitely  numerous  and  eternal,  are  at  least  fore- 
gleams  of  all  that  has  been  claimed  for  evolution 
in  these  later  years. 

Professor  Tyndall  frankly  acknowledges  that 
he  finds  the  atomic  philosophy  and  the  survival 
of  the  fittest  in  Democritus.  Aristotle  likewise 
was  an  experimenter  in  these  same  fields.  Lu- 
cretius was  a  clearly  pronounced  evolutionist.  The 
Arabian  scientists  most  emphatically  taught  the 
evolution  of  the  universe  from  atoms  and  germs. 
Dismissing  from  the  universe  a  personal  Creator, 
Epicurus  placed  back  of  his  scheme  of  evolution 
what  may  be  called  spontaneous  chance.  Evo- 
lution as  a  method  was  almost  as  explicitly  set 
forth  by  St.  Augustine  as  by  Charles  Darwin. 
Giordano  Bruno,  in  1580,  read  papers  before  the 
most  cultivated  people  of  his  times  on  evolution 
and  spontaneous  generation.  About  the  same  time 
Francisco  Suarez  adopted  and  greatly  extended 
the  evolution  views  of  Augustine,  and  made  such 
application  of  them  as  to  deprive  modern  thinkers 
of  their  claim  to  originality.  In  1640  Professor 
Pierre  Gassendi,  though  not  rejecting  the  superin- 
tendence of  an  infinite  intelligence,  defended  the 
doctrine  of  development  from  atoms.  In  1748 
De  Maillet  advanced  the  theory  that  plants  and 
animals  are  spontaneously  modified  forms  of  na- 
ture. Comte  de  Buffon,  about  1780,  announced 
the  theory  of  transmutation   of  species.     Lord 


74  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

Monboddo,  in  1778,  suggested  the  possible  origin 
of  man  from  the  ape.  Jean  Baptiste  Lamarck, 
a  distinguished  French  naturalist,  proposed,  in 
1809,  the  hypothesis  of  the  elevation  of  an  animal 
"  to  a  higher  range  of  faculties  and  appropriate  or- 
gans by  the  prolonged  and  repeated  efforts  made 
by  it  to  obtain  to  conditions  and  advantages  just 
within  or  at  first  just  beyond  its  reach."  Erasmus 
Darwin,  as  early  as  1795,  published  views  that 
contain  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  most 
pronounced  Darwinism  of  the  present  time.  Dr. 
W.  C.  Wells,  in  181 3,  used  the  term  "natural  se- 
lection "  and  applied  it  to  the  development  of 
man.  Professor  William  Herbert,  in  1822,  pub- 
lished the  theory  of  the  "  transmutation  of  species 
in  plants,"  and  about  the  same  time  Geoffroy 
Saint- Hilaire  announced  the  hypothesis  of  "  trans- 
mutation in  the  animal  kingdom."  Hugo  von 
Mohl  and  Max  Schultze,  in  1850  or  a  trifle  later, 
spoke  of  a  protoplasmic  material  or  substance  from 
which  all  things  originate.  Herbert  Spencer 
nearly  fifty  years  ago  connected  the  theory  of  de- 
velopment with  both  cosmology  and  biology.  Dr. 
Alfred  R.  Wallace  and  Charles  Darwin,  in  1858, 
separately  announced  the  hypothesis  of  the  "  ori- 
gin of  the  species  by  spontaneous  variation,  and 
the  survival  of  the  fittest  through  natural  selec- 
tion and  the  struggle  for  existence." 

Such  is  the  history  of  evolution  down  to  the 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  75 

time  of  its  announcement  by  Dr.  Wallace  and 
Mr.  Darwin.  So  far  from  being  something  new, 
it  would  better  be  regarded  a  revival  and  en- 
largement of  views  entertained  by  philosophers 
and  church  fathers,  skeptics  and  scientists,  dur- 
ing the  last  twenty  centuries.  On  this  subject, 
as  on  many  others,  we  may  utter  the  facetious 
complaint,  attributed  to  Macaulay,  that  the  an- 
cients have  stolen  all  our  best  ideas. 

Evolution  should  not  be  assailed,  however, 
because  it  is  old  or  because  it  is  new,  but  simply 
because  it  lacks  the  support  of  facts.  The  in- 
dictment we  are  constrained  to  bring  against  it, 
especially  in  its  attempts  to  account  for  the  origin 
of  things,  is  not  modest ;  indeed,  it  appears  to 
be  exceedingly  dogmatic,  and  is  offered  with  a 
pretty  clear  understanding  of  the  surprise  with 
which  in  some  quarters  it  will  be  received.  It  is 
this :  the  hypothesis  that  animal  life,  including 
man  and  woman,  originally  came  upon  this  earth 
from  some  kind  of  life-forms  lower  than  itself, 
that  had  their  beginning  in  spontaneous  gen- 
eration, maturing  through  evolution  by  natural 
selection  or  by  the  survival  of  the  fittest  or  in 
any  kindred  ways,  is  at  the  present  stage  of 
scientific  inquiry  not  supported  as  a  whole  or  in 
any  of  its  parts  by  a  single  well-established  fact 
in  the  whole  domain  of  science  or  philosophy. 

An  announcement  of  this  kind,  which  seems 


76  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

defiant  and  certainly  is  antagonistic  to  much  that 
has  been  said  by  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
scientists  of  this  century,  ought  to  be  challenged 
unless  strongly  supported  by  facts  and  by  first- 
class  authorities.  Indeed,  this  indictment,  if  un- 
supported, would  be  regarded  properly  as  a  piece 
of  insolent  clerical  dogmatism. 

II.    FACTS  ANTAGONISTIC  TO  THIS  HYPOTHESIS 

Professor  Haeckel,  as  is  well  known,  attempted 
to  derive  the  higher  plant  forms  from  Algae  or 
seaweed.  But,  as  Sir  John  William  Dawson  has 
shown,  nothing  could  more  curiously  contradict 
actual  facts.  The  Algae  that  appeared  in  the 
Silurian  deposit  are  neither  more  nor  less  ele- 
vated than  those  found  in  the  modern  seas. 
And  those  other  forms  of  vegetable  life  that 
look  as  though  they  might  bridge  the  space  be- 
tween sea-plants  and  land-plants  are  not  found 
in  the  older  geological  deposits,  while  land-plants 
without  any  predecessors  seem  to  have  started 
at  once  into  being  in  the  guise  of  club-mosses,  a 
group  by  no  means  of  low  order.  The  oldest 
land-plants  that  represent  the  highest  recent 
types  of  the  series  to  which  they  belong  are  in 
some  instances  better-developed  examples  of 
those  types  than  any  that  now  can  be  found  on 
the  earth. 


HYPOTHESIS   OF  EVOLUTION  77 

Another  fact  of  interest,  and  one  that  illus- 
trates the  persistence  of  species  in  the  vegetable 
world,  is  this :  the  oak,  the  birch,  the  hazel,  and 
the  Scotch  fir  easily  are  traced  back  at  least  ap- 
proximately to  the  ice  age;  but  through  all  this 
stretch  of  time  they  have  remained  the  oak,  birch, 
hazel,  and  fir  without  any  essential  variation. 

In  the  animal  kingdom,  too,  derivation  from  one 
species  to  another  is  not  established.  Whether 
mammals  are  derived  from  amphibians  or  from 
reptiles  or  from  neither  is  a  matter  of  dispute 
among  naturalists.  The  development  of  the  true 
horse  from  an  animal  of  the  angulate  type  is  a 
waning  theory.  Of  the  early  sharks,  ganoids, 
and  placoderms  there  are  discovered  no  precur- 
sors at  all. 

And  the  persistence  of  some  types  of  animal 
life  is  very  remarkable.  The  insect,  for  instance, 
that  built  the  first  Florida  coral  reef,  which  is 
thirty  thousand  years  old  or  more,  has  not 
changed  in  the  least  during  its  entire  career. 

Coming  down  to  comparatively  recent  times,  it 
is  found  that  the  birds  and  beasts  of  the  Roman 
catacombs  and  of  the  Egyptian  pyramids  are 
identical  with  existing  species.  Count  Cuvier,  in 
his  work  entitled  "Theory  of  the  Earth,"  states 
the  matter  with  fullness  and  clearness :  "  It  might 
seem  as  if  the  ancient  Egyptians  had  been  in- 
spired by  nature  for  the  purpose  of  transmitting 


78  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

to  after-ages  a  monument  of  her  natural  history. 
That  strange  and  whimsical  people,  by  embalm- 
ing with  so  much  care  the  brutes  which  were  the 
objects  of  their  stupid  adoration,  have  left  us  in 
their  sacred  grottos  cabinets  of  zoology  almost 
complete.  Climate  has  conspired  with  art  to 
preserve  the  bodies  from  corruption,  and  we 
can  now  assure  ourselves  with  our  own  eyes 
what  was  the  state  of  a  good  number  of  species 
three  thousand  years  ago.  I  have  endeavored  to 
collect  all  the  ancient  documents  respecting  the 
forms  of  animals,  and  there  are  none  equal  to 
those  furnished  by  the  Egyptians  in  regard  to  both 
their  antiquity  and  abundance.  I  have  exam- 
ined with  the  greatest  care  the  engraved  figures 
of  quadrupeds  and  birds  upon  the  obelisks 
brought  from  Egypt  to  ancient  Rome ;  and  all 
these  figures,  one  with  another,  have  a  perfect 
resemblance  to  their  intended  objects  such  as 
they  still  are  in  our  days.  My  learned  friend, 
Geoffroy  Saint- Hilaire,  convinced  me  of  the  im- 
portance of  this  research,  and  carefully  collected 
in  the  tombs  and  temples  of  Upper  and  Lower 
Egypt  as  many  mummies  of  animals  as  he  could 
procure.  He  has  brought  home  the  mummies 
of  cats,  ibises,  birds  of  prey,  dogs,  crocodiles,  and 
the  head  of  a  bull.  After  the  most  attentive  and 
detailed  examination,  not  the  smallest  difference 
is  to  be  perceived  between  these  animals  and 
those  of  the  same  species  which  we  now  see,  any 


HYPOTHESIS   OF  EVOLUTION  79 

more  than  between  human  mummies  and  skele- 
tons of  men  of  the  present  day." 

Of  late  years  much  has  been  said  of  the 
changes  that  nature  can  produce  in  animal  life 
by  the  use  and  disuse  of  parts  or  limbs  by  labor, 
strife,  physical  changes  or  conditions,  and  by  or- 
ganic influence ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
natural  modification  in  species  never  has  been 
such  as  to  secure  what  properly  could  be  called 
a  new  genus. 

From  time  to  time,  especially  during  the  last 
half-century,  as  is  well  known,  attempts  have 
been  made  through  what  is  called  "  domestica- 
tion "  to  produce  new  and  permanent  species  of 
animals ;  but  the  results  have  afforded  only  the 
most  doleful  consolation  for  naturalism. 

While  it  is  true  that  by  selective  breeding 
carried  on  for  successive  generations  there  may 
be  obtained  cattle  with  long  horns,  with  short 
horns,  and  with  no  horns ;  while  fowls  may  be 
obtained  with  large  combs,  with  no  combs,  or 
with  a  rosette  of  feathers  in  place  of  a  crested 
comb ;  while  pigeons  may  be  obtained  having 
long  bills  or  short  bills,  long  or  short  legs;  still, 
cattle  have  remained  cattle,  fowl  have  remained 
fowl,  and  pigeons  have  remained  pigeons. 

Dr.  Robert  Patterson,  F.R.S.,  has  stated  the 
case  so  admirably  that  we  favor  the  reader  with 
a  quotation  from  his  "  Fables  of  Infidelity  "  : 

"  The  efforts  of  breeders  have  been  exerted 


80  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

for  thousands  of  years  upon  the  dog,  the  ox,  the 
goat,  the  sheep,  the  horse,  the  ass,  and  the 
camel,  among  animals ;  and  upon  the  goose,  the 
duck,  and  the  pigeon,  and,  for  a  shorter  time, 
but  still  for  two  thousand  years,  upon  the  com- 
mon barn-door  poultry.  Farmers  in  all  lands 
since  the  deluge  have  used  their  best  exertions 
to  improve  the  cereals,  the  fruit-trees,  the  vines, 
and  root-crops  and  vegetables,  and  the  result 
has  been  some  valuable  modifications  of  size, 
shape,  flavor,  and  fertility ;  but  in  no  case  what- 
ever has  any  change  of  species  been  effected. 
All  the  efforts  of  breeders  have  not  succeeded  in 
making  the  horse  specifically  different  from  the 
noble  animal  described  in  the  Book  of  Job  four 
thousand  years  ago ;  the  sheep  has  not  become 
a  goat,  nor  the  goat  a  sheep,  by  all  the  pains  of 
all  the  shepherds  since  the  days  of  Abel ;  the  ass 
displays  not  the  least  tendency  to  become  a 
horse,  nor  the  goat  to  become  a  cow.  Mr.  Dar- 
win makes  great  capital  out  of  pigeons,  enumer- 
ating all  the  varieties  owned  by  fanciers,  and 
showing  how  the  Indian  emperors  bred  them  a 
thousand  years  before  Christ.  But  it  is  strange 
that  he  does  not  see  that  this  makes  against  his 
theory,  since  in  all  that  time  this  most  variable 
of  birds  has  never  been  transmuted  into  any 
other  species.  The  pigeon  has  never  been 
changed  into  a  crow  or  a  magpie   or  a  wood- 


HYPOTHESIS   OF  EVOLUTION  81 

pecker  or  a  chicken — has  never,  in  fact,  become 
anything  else  than  a  pigeon.  Dogs  are  also 
somewhat  variable  in  their  varieties,  and  Mr. 
Darwin  relies  greatly  upon  supposed  variations 
from  some  one  assumed  ancestral  pair  of  dogs, 
into  the  greyhound,  mastiff,  terrier,  and  lap-dog. 
But,  granting  all  these  unproven  variations,  no 
instance  is  alleged  of  a  dog  ever  becoming  a  cat 
or  a  lion  by  any  care  or  culture." 

And  says  Professor  Huxley,  "  After  much 
consideration,  and  with  assuredly  no  bias  against 
Mr.  Darwin's  views,  it  is  my  clear  conviction 
that,  as  the  evidence  now  stands,  it  is  not  proven 
that  a  group  of  animals,  having  all  the  character- 
istics exhibited  by  species  in  nature,  ever  has 
been  originated  by  selection,  whether  artificial 
or  natural." 

Have  we  not,  therefore,  kept  within  the 
bounds  of  prudence  when  saying  that  a  uni- 
versal law  of  development  and  improvement 
does  not  exist?  Here  are  some  cases  where 
there  is  a  standstill  or  a  persistence  of  species, 
in  spite  of  all  natural  or  artificial  agencies  to 
modify  them.  And -who  cannot  see  that  these 
facts  constitute  a  stubborn  defiance  to  all  modern 
schemes  of  evolution? 

But,  more  than  this,  there  are  in  some  in- 
stances what  seem  to  be  backward  rather  than 
forward  movements.     For  illustration,  there  are 


82  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

certain  shrimp-like  animals,  similar  in  form, 
called  the  Nauplius,  which  begin  life  with  con- 
siderable diversity  of  organs.  The  organs  grad- 
ually are  perfected  in  the  free-living  shrimps  as 
they  grow,  but  disappear  in  the  parasitic  animals. 
Another  instance  is  that  of  the  Ascidia  (sea- 
squirts),  which  consist  chiefly  of  a  mouth  and  an 
intestine,  through  which  the  sea-water  passes, 
and  in  this  way  nourishment  is  absorbed.  The 
germs  of  one  of  this  family  (the  Phalloideae) 
possess  in  an  elementary  form  the  four  essential 
features — backbone,  marrow,  throat,  and  cere- 
bral eye — which  distinguish  vertebrates  from  all 
other  animals ;  and  not  only  is  there  no  develop- 
ment of  these  elementary  organs,  but  they  are 
actually  lost  as  the  animal  matures,  and  there  is 
no  restoration  after  these  changes  are  well  estab- 
lished. 

The  nauplius  of  the  egg  of  the  ship's  barnacle, 
after  swimming  about  for  a  time,  fixes  its  head 
against  a  piece  of  wood  and  becomes  motionless ; 
it  loses  its  organs  of  touch  and  sight,  its  legs  lose 
their  normal  function,  and  are  used  only  to  bring 
floating  particles  to  the  orifice  of  the  stomach,  so 
that  the  animal  has  been  compared  to  a  man 
standing  on  his  head  and  kicking  his  food  into 
his  mouth. 

Professor  Edwin  Ray  Lankester,  speaking  of 
the  entire  family  of  parasites,  says :  "  The  habit 


HYPOTHESIS   OF  EVOLUTION  83 

of  parasitism  clearly  acts  upon  animal  organiza- 
tion in  this  way.  Let  the  parasitic  life  once  be 
secured,  and  away  go  legs,  jaws,  eyes,  and  ears; 
the  active,  highly  gifted  crab,  insect,  or  annelid 
may  become  a  mere  sac,  absorbing  nourishment 
and  laying  eggs." 

The  hermit-crab,  though  apparently  making  a 
very  cunning  natural  selection  when  moving  into 
a  second-hand  house,  the  well-built  shell  of  the 
mollusk,  that  can  stand  a  good  deal  of  thumping 
on  the  rocks  without  breaking  in  pieces,  is  unfor- 
tunate nevertheless;  for  there  follows  a  deterio- 
ration of  certain  important  parts  of  the  body,  and 
several  of  its  organs  suffer  a  partial  or  an  entire 
collapse.  But  no  new  species  follows;  the  ani- 
mal remains  a  degenerate  crab. 

In  case  of  the  Mosasaurids,  a  cretaceous  species, 
the  changes  have  been  such  as  to  result  in  what 
Professor  Dana  calls  "profound  degeneration." 

If,  as  is  claimed,  the  amphibian  snakes  of  the 
Carbonic  period  lost  the  limbs  they  once  had,  that 
loss  is  also  clearly  a  case  of  degeneration.  The 
fish  family  far  back  in  the  Devonian  era  reached 
the  highest  grade  in  fish  vertebrate  structure; 
since  that  time  the  fish  has  been  in  the  way 
not  of  development,  but  of  degeneration.  Brute 
mammals  long  since  passed  their  maximum  de- 
velopment ;  none  of  their  descendants  have  been 
their  equals. 


84  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

The  foregoing  are  only  a  few  of  the  instances 
that  could  be  given  in  support  of  what  we  were 
saying  on  degeneration ;  but  we  are  sure  they  are 
sufficient  to  show  that  there  is  in  the  vegetable 
and  animal  kingdom  not  only  no  universal  law  of 
development  or  elaboration,  as  has  been  claimed, 
but  in  many  cases  there  is  such  a  deterioration  of 
parts  and  functions  that,  if  there  were  steps  or 
leaps  either  way  in  a  species,  they  are  quite  as 
likely  to  be  downward  as  upward.  And  we  are 
sure  that  no  well-informed  investigator  will  dis- 
pute the  statement  that  the  culmination  of  types, 
followed  by  degeneration  and  extinction,  is  as 
much  a  recognized  law  in  nature  as  any  other 
one  in  her  code.  Or,  employing  the  words  of 
Professor  E.  D.  Cope,  who  is  an  eminent  and 
thoroughgoing  evolutionist,  "  The  retrogradation 
in  nature  is  as  well,  or  nearly  as  well,  established 
as  evolution."  * 

There  is  still  one  other  grouping  or  class  of 
facts  that  is  a  troublesome  offense  and  stone  of 
stumbling  to  naturalism.  There  lived  during  the 
Paleozoic  age  five  hundred  species  of  trilobites; 
a  little  later,  speaking  geologically,  they  all  dis- 
appeared.    Nine  hundred  species  of  the  ammonite 

*  If  any  of  our  readers  care  to  pursue  this  topic  further,  in- 
teresting matter  will  be  found  in  a  treatise  on  degeneration  by 
Dr.  Dohon  of  Naples,  and  in  another  on  the  same  subject  by 
Professor  Lankester. 


HYPOTHESIS   OF  EVOLUTION  85 

flourished  at  different  periods  during  the  Mesozoic 
era,  but  all  now  are  extinct.  At  different  periods 
of  the  earth's  history  there  have  been  four  hun- 
dred and  fifty  or  more  species  of  the  nautilus; 
now  there  are  only  three,  and  these  are  peculiar 
to  the  present  time.  Seven  hundred  species  of 
fossilized  ganoids  have  been  found ;  the  tribe 
now  has  scarcely  a  living  representative,  and  the 
cephalopods  and  goniatites  have  suffered  constant 
diminution  in  both  size  and  number. 

Not  only  have  single  species  gradually  disap- 
peared, but  whole  families  of  different  species 
belonging  to  a  given  era,  gradually  in  some  in- 
stances and  suddenly  in  others,  have  suffered 
extinction.  All  the  fishes,  reptiles,  birds,  and 
mammals  of  the  Tertiary  are  now  extinct.  All 
air-breathing  animals  that  were  on  the  earth  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Carbonic  era  succumbed 
during  its  most  flourishing  periods,  though  air- 
breathers  again  appeared  while  the  carbon  growths 
were  hardening  into  coal. 

Exterminations  incident  to  mountain-making, 
which  are  accompanied  with  changes  of  climate 
and  a  rush  of  waters,  have  been  frequent  and 
wide-spread.  The  close  of  that  era,  for  illustra- 
tion, when  the  great  mountain-range  of  eastern 
North  America  appeared,  witnessed  one  of  the 
most  universal  and  abrupt  disappearances  of  life 
in  geological  history.     It  was  so  destructive  that 


86  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

no  species  of  land-animals  that  preceded  can  be 
found  among  the  fossils  of  subsequent  periods  in 
America,  Europe,  or  the  rest  of  the  world. 

And  later  the  disruption  of  the  earth's  crust, 
extending  west  i6°  S.,  and  east  i6°  N.,  through 
which  the  chain  of  the  great  Alps  was  forced  up 
to  its  present  elevation,  which,  according  to  M. 
D'Orbigny,  was  simultaneous  with  that  which 
forced  up  the  Chilian  Andes,  a  chain  of  three 
thousand  miles  in  length,  terminated  the  Terti- 
ary age,  and  wrought  appalling  and  wide-spread 
devastations. 

Dr.  Nathaniel  Lardner,  speaking  of  this  epoch, 
says,  "  The  waters  of  the  seas  and  oceans,  lifted 
up  from  their  beds  by  this  immense  perturbation, 
swept  over  the  continents  with  irresistible  force, 
destroying  instantaneously  the  entire  flora  and 
fauna  of  the  last  Tertiary  period,  and  burying  its 
ruins  in  the  sedimentary  deposits  which  ensued." 

We  find,  therefore,  that,  instead  of  a  multipli- 
cation of  types  through  geological  time,  which 
would  be  expected  according  to  the  theory  of 
naturalistic  evolution,  the  evidence  showing  the 
vanishing  tendency  of  some  types  and  the  utter 
extinction  of  others  is  overwhelming.  The  testi- 
mony of  Dr.  Alfred  Russel  Wallace  in  his  "  Dar- 
winism "  is  in  place  :  "  Although  a  certain  number 
of  species  are  common  to  two  or  more  of  the 
great  divisions  of  geological  history,  the  totality 


HYPOTHESIS   OF  EVOLUTION  87 

of  the  species  that  have  lived  upon  the  earth  must 
be  very  much  more  than  twelve  times,  perhaps 
even  thirty  or  forty  times,  the  number  now  living." 

Professor  George  Q.  Romanes  does  not  hesi- 
tate to  say  that  during  the  history  of  animal  life 
"  millions  of  the  lower  species  have  succumbed." 

But  geology  shows  something  still  worse  for 
the  cause  of  naturalism ;  namely,  after  these  ex- 
terminations there  often  has  been  a  sudden  ap- 
pearance of  whole  groups  of  different  genera, 
families,  and  species  of  plants  and  animals,  with- 
out any  recognizable  forms  leading  up  to  them, 
or  from  which,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  they  pos- 
sibly could  be  developed.  This  fact,  as  no  one 
can  fail  to  see,  is  a  well-nigh  insurmountable 
barrier  in  the  pathway  of  naturalistic  evolution. 
That  hypothesis  makes  no  provision  whatever  for 
such  an  abrupt  appearance  of  the  various  distinct 
species  of  life  that  over  and  over  again  during 
geological  history  have  come  into  being. 

It  is  now  clearly  evident  to  all  our  readers  that 
the  early  expectations  of  naturalism  that  it  can 
account  for  existing  species  and  genera  of  animals, 
with  all  their  variations,  on  the  ground  of  devel- 
opment by  natural  selection,  or  by  the  survival 
of  the  fittest,  or,  as  Lamarck  puts  the  matter,  by 
the  use  and  disuse  of  organs  and  parts,  have  met 
in  obvious  facts  almost  a  continuous  series  of  dis- 
appointments.    Even  Mr.  Darwin,  who,  early  in 


88  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

his  career,  taught  that  among  races  in  the  strug- 
gle for  life  the  weaker  are  destroyed  and  the 
stronger,  in  the  long  run,  survive,  also  that  desire 
and  effort  can  produce  new  and  improved  organs, 
as  a  desire  to  see  will  result  in  the  formation  of 
an  eye,  and  desire  to  walk  will  produce  a  leg  and 
foot,  in  his  later  writings  gracefully  confessed,  to 
use  his  own  words,  that  in  his  "  Origin  of  Spe- 
cies "  he  "  attributed  too  much  to  the  action  of 
natural  selection." 

III.    OPINIONS     ANTAGONISTIC     TO     THIS     HY- 
POTHESIS 

Before  closing  this  part  of  the  discussion,  we 
quote  from  a  few  acknowledged  authorities  in 
support  of  the  view  we  advocate,  that  there  is 
no  scientific  evidence  of  naturalistic  transforma- 
tions among  the  species: 

"  That  such  transformations  as  are  claimed  by 
the  evolutionist  are  wholly  unknown  to  the  realms 
of  nature,"  says  Cuvier,  "  is  a  point  upon  which 
the  most  distinguished  geologists  and  anatomists 
are  unanimous." 

"  At  succeeding  epochs  new  tribes  of  beings," 
says  Professor  Adam  Sedgwick,  "  were  called 
into  existence,  not  merely  as  the  progeny  of  those 
that  had  appeared  before  them,  but  as  new  and 
living  proofs  of  creative  interference." 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  89 

"  All  these  facts,"  says  Professor  Francis  M. 
Balfour,  "  contradict  the  crude  ideas  of  those  so- 
called  naturalists  who  state  that  one  species  can 
be  transmuted  into  another  in  the  course  of  gen- 
erations." 

"  The  species  have  a  real  existence  in  nature," 
says  Lyell,  "  and  each  was  endowed  at  the  time 
of  its  creation  with  the  attributes  and  organs  by 
which  it  is  now  distinguished." 

"  Everything,"  says  Sir  Charles  Bell,  "  declares 
the  species  to  have  its  origin  in  a  distinct  crea- 
tion, not  in  a  gradual  variation  from  some  original 
type." 

"  We  have  absolute  proof  of  the  immutability 
of  species,"  says  Sir  David  Brewster,  "  whether 
we  search  for  it  in  historic  or  geologic  times." 

Says  Professor  C.  C.  Everett,  "  If  these  ranks 
of  beings  ever  rose  and  moved  in  glad  procession 
along  the  upward  slope,  each  passing,  by  no 
matter  how  slow  a  step,  out  of  its  own  limitations, 
and  in  itself  or  its  posterity  entering  upon  a  larger 
life,  it  was  before  the  eyes  of  man  were  opened 
to  behold  them.  No  searching  of  his  awakened 
powers  can  detect,  even  among  the  remains  of 
an  unknown  antiquity,  any  glimpse  of  the  great 
movement  while  in  progress  of  accomplishment. 
All,  as  he  looks  upon  it,  is  as  fixed  as  the  sphinx 
that  slumbers  on  the  Egyptian  sands.  All  this 
story  of  transformation  and  activity  is  a  dream." 


l^ 


90  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

The  younger  Agassiz,  in  his  able  paper  upon 
sea-urchins,  confesses  that  he  utterly  despairs  of 
-finding  the  missing  links  upon  which  evolution 
inevitably  depends. 

Says  Professor  Dana,  "  For  the  most  part 
throughout  the  kingdom  of  life,  variation  is  with- 
out explanation,  though  enough  is  known  to  en- 
courage study." 

Says  Professor  Tyndall,  in  the  "  Fortnightly 
Review,"  "  If  asked  whether  science  has  solved 
or  is  likely  in  our  day  to  solve  the  problem  of 
the  universe,  I  must  shake  my  head  in  doubt. 
Behind  and  above  and  around  us  the  real  mystery 
of  the  universe  lies  unsolved,  and,  as  far  as  we 
are  concerned,  is  incapable  of  solution.   .   .   . 

"  Those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  evolution  are 
by  no  means  ignorant  of  the  uncertainty  of  their 
data,  and  they  only  yield  to  it  a  provisional  as- 
sent.  .   .   . 

"  They  frankly  admit  their  inability  to  point  to 
any  satisfactory  experimental  proof  that  life  can 
be  developed  save  from  demonstrable  antecedent 
life.   .   .   . 

"  I  share  Virchow's  opinion  that  the  theory  of 
evolution  in  its  complete  form  involves  the  as- 
sumption that  at  some  period  or  other  of  the 
earth's  history  there  occurred  what  would  be  now 
called  spontaneous  generation;  but  I  agree  with 
him  that  the  proofs  of  it  are  wanting.     I  also  hold, 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  91 

with  Virchow,  that  the  failures  have  been  so  lam- 
entable that  the  doctrine  is  utterly  discredited." 

Says  Professor  Mivart,  "  With  regard  to  the 
conception  as  now  put  forward  by  Mr.  Darwin, 
I  cannot  truly  characterize  it  but  by  an  epithet 
I  employ  with  great  reluctance.  I  weigh  my 
words,  and  have  present  to  my  mind  the  many 
distinguished  naturalists  who  have  accepted  the 
notion,  and  yet  I  cannot  call  it  anything  but  a 
puerile  hypothesis. ' ' 

Says  Dr.  Charles  Elam,  "  The  hypothesis  of 
natural  selection  is  not  directly  supported  by  any 
single  fact  in  the  whole  range  of  natural  history 
or  paleontology ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  every 
fact  which  is  known  with  any  certainty  in  those 
sciences,  so  far  as  it  bears  upon  natural  selection, 
directly  opposes  it." 

And  the  elder  Professor  Agassiz,  in  words 
highly  prized  by  every  thoughtful  Christian,  puts 
the  case  calmly  and  strongly :  "  It  is  evident  that 
there  is  a  manifest  progress  in  the  succession  of 
beings  on  the  surface  of  the  earth.  This  progress 
consists  in  an  increasing  similarity  to  the  living 
fauna,  and,  among  the  vertebrates,  especially  in 
their  increasing  resemblance  to  man.  But  this 
connection  is  not  the  consequence  of  a  direct  line- 
age between  the  faunas  of  different  ages.  There 
is  nothing  like  parental  descent  connecting  them. 
The  fishes  of  the  Paleozoic  age  are  in  no  respect 


92  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

the  ancestors  of  the  reptiles  of  the  Secondary 
age;  nor  does  man  descend  from  the  mammals 
which  preceded  him  in  the  Tertiary  age.  The 
link  by  which  they  are  connected  is  of  a  higher 
and  immaterial  nature  ;  and  their  connection  is  to 
be  sought  in  the  view  of  the  Creator  himself, 
whose  aim  in  forming  the  earth,  in  allowing  it  to 
undergo  the  successive  changes  which  geology 
has  pointed  out,  and  in  creating  successively  all 
the  different  types  of  animals  which  have  passed 
away,  was  to  introduce  man  upon  the  surface  of 
our  globe.  Man  is  the  end  toward  which  all  the 
animal  creation  has  tended  from  the  first  appear- 
ance of  the  first  Paleozoic  fishes." 

In  an  address  delivered  in  1862  before  the 
British  Geological  Society,  Professor  Huxley  ad- 
mitted that  the  time  allowed  by  geological  science 
for  the  development  of  vegetable  and  animal  life 
precludes  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  as  usually 
advocated  by  the  friends  of  that  theory.  These 
are  his  words :  "  Obviously  if  the  earliest  fos- 
siliferous  rocks  now  known  are  coeval  with  the 
commencement  of  life,  and  if  their  contents  give 
us  any  just  conception  of  the  earliest  fauna  and 
flora,  the  insignificant  amount  of  modification 
which  can  be  demonstrated  to  have  taken  place 
in  any  one  group  of  animals  and  plants  is  quite 
incompatible  with  the  hypothesis  that  all  living 
forms  are  the  results  of  a  process  of  necessary 


HYPOTHESIS   OF  EVOLUTION  93 

progressive  development  entirely  comprised  with- 
in the  time  represented  by  the  fossiliferous  rocks." 

During  the  summer  of  1885  Professor  George 
E.  Post  of  the  Syrian  Mission,  himself  a  man  of 
no  inconsiderable  scientific  attainment,  visited 
the  British  Museum  to  have  certain  specimens 
that  he  had  brought  from  Syria  named  and  clas- 
sified. After  this  had  been  done  he  was  shown 
about  the  museum  by  Dr.  Etheridge,  examiner 
of  the  science  division,  and  one  of  England's 
most  famous  experts  in  fossilology.  When  the 
interview  was  closing,  Dr.  Post  asked  the  ques- 
tion whether  "  these  orders  of  creation  seen  in  the 
collection  of  fossils  in  the  museum,  after  all,  were 
not  the  working  out  of  mind  and  providence." 

A  reply  from  a  scientist  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  the  vast  collections  in  that  museum,  and 
who  knows  as  well  as  any  one  else  in  Great 
Britain  about  the  "  origin  of  the  species  "  and 
"missing  links,"  will  be  received  almost  with 
abated  breath. 

This  was  his  answer :  "  In  all  this  great  museum 
there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  of  transmuta- 
tion of  species.  Nine  tenths  of  the  talk  of  evolu- 
tionists is  sheer  nonsense,  not  founded  on  observa- 
tion and  wholly  unsupported  by  fact.  Men  adopt 
a  theory  and  then  strain  their  facts  to  support 
it.  I  read  all  their  books,  but  they  make  no  im- 
pression on  my  belief  in  the  stability  of  species. 


04  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Moreover,  the  talk  of  the  great  antiquity  of  man 
is  of  no  value.  Some  men  are  ready  to  regard 
you  as  a  fool  if  you  do  not  go  with  them  in  all 
their  vagaries ;  but  this  museum  is  full  of  proofs 
of  the  utter  falsity  of  their  views." 


CHAPTER   V 
Hypothesis  of  Evolution  (Continued) 

I.    HUMAN  FOSSILS 

What  has  been  said  in  the  preceding  chapter 
concerning  the  supposed  evolution  of  plants  and 
animals  is  essentially,  and  in  some  respects  very 
manifestly,  true  of  the  human  family.  It  is  found, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  Ethiopian  from  the 
earliest  historic  times  has  no  more  changed  his 
skin  than  the  leopard  has  his  spots.  The  negro, 
too,  as  represented  in  the  tombs  of  Egypt  and  in 
Assyrian  sculpture,  had  the  same  type  of  nose 
and  heel  forty  centuries  ago  that  he  has  to- 
day. 

Dr.  Ussher,  quoted  by  Dr.  Daniel  Wilson, 
speaking  of  the  American  type  of  primitive  man, 
says:  "  We  trace  these  people  back  into  the  very 
night  of  time,  but  find  that  they  have  preserved 
the  same  type  from  geological  time  to  the  period 
of  the  Columbian  discovery." 
95 


96  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Taking  the  skull  as  the  basis  of  comparison,  the 
evidence  is  conclusive  that  there  has  been  no  im- 
provement or  elaboration  since  the  human  race 
began. 

Professor  Huxley,  speaking  of  one  of  the  oldest 
fossil  skulls  that  has  been  discovered,  says  that, 
so  far  as  size  and  shape  are  concerned,  it  might 
have  been  the  brain  of  a  philosopher.  Professor 
Pierre  Paul  Broca,  who  made  a  very  careful  study 
of  the  cro-magnon  skull  that  was  found  in  Peri- 
gord,  France,  which  belongs  to  the  earliest  stone 
age,  says :  "  The  great  volume  of  the  brain,  the 
development  of  the  frontal  region,  the  fine  ellipti- 
cal profile  of  the  anterior  portion  of  the  skull,  and 
the  orthognathous  form  of  the  upper  facial  region 
are  incontestable  evidence  of  superiority,  and  are 
characteristics  that  usually  are  found  only  in  civi- 
lized nations."  Dr.  Bruner-Bey  declares  that 
these  most  ancient  skulls  "  surpass  in  size  the 
average  of  modern  European  skulls,  while  their 
symmetrical  form  compares  favorably  with  the 
skulls  of  many  of  the  most  civilized  nations  of 
modern  times." 

Dr.  Friedrich  Pfaff,  in  a  tract  recently  trans- 
lated from  the  German  on  the  question,  "  When 
did  Man  Appear  on  the  Earth?"  has  presented 
the  following  table,  showing  the  measurement  of 
several  skulls  belonging  to  different  countries  and 
ages: 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  97 


CUBIC 
INCHES 

Average  of  several  Northern  skulls  belonging  to  the 

stone  age 18.877 

Average  of  48  English  skulls  belonging  to  the  stone 

age 18.858 

Average  of   7  Welsh  skulls  belonging  to  the  stone 

age 18.649 

Average  of  36  French  skulls  belonging  to  the  stone 

age 18. 220 

Average  of  living  European  skulls 18.579 

Average  of  living  Hottentot  skulls 1 7.795 


Taking  any  other  part  of  the  human  body,  or 
the  entire  body,  as  the  basis  of  comparison,  the 
showing  is  no  better  for  the  evolutionist.  In- 
deed, from  every  possible  point  of  view  the  evi- 
dence is  overwhelming  that  the  oldest  men  in 
their  physical  structure  were  no  nearer  the  brute 
than  are  men  now  living.* 

II.    CIVILIZATION 

Passing  from  the  fossil  bones  of  primitive  men 
to  their  civilization,  we  discover  that  the  show- 
ing for  naturalism  is  also  very  disheartening.  In 
Europe  primitive  men,  those  of  the  early  stone 
age,  were  violent  and  brutal,  but  they  were  not 
brutes.  They  buried  their  dead,  and  did  this  in 
a  manner  that  shows,  judging  from  comparative 

*  For  further  confirmation  of  this  subject,  see  contributions 
to  the  Royal  Society  of  London,  1868,  by  Dr.  G.  Barnard  Davis ; 
discoveries  by  Dr.  Schmerling  near  Liege,  Belgium ;  reports  of 
F.  Noetling  concerning  the  Lower  Pliocene  of  Burmah. 


98  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

interment,  that  they  had  ideas  of  both  a  future 
life  and  of  a  Supreme  Being. 

William  Boyd  Dawkins,  in  his  book  entitled 
"  Cane  Hunting,"  speaking  of  the  oldest  engrav- 
ings made  by  the  stone  men  on  the  mammoth 
tooth  and  reindeer  horn,  says  :  "  The  most  clever 
sculptor  of  modern  times  would  probably  not  suc- 
ceed very  much  better  if  his  graver  were  a  splin- 
ter of  flint,  and  if  stone  and  bones  were  the  mate- 
rials to  be  engraved." 

In  Asia  and  Egypt  the  data  are  much  fuller, 
and  are  convincing  to  all  except  those,  we  were 
on  the  point  of  saying,  whose  perceptions  are 
blunted  by  adverse  predeterminations.  The  con- 
dition of  the  human  race  in  those  ancient  countries 
was  at  the  outset  manifestly  not  crude  and  sav- 
age, but  highly  civilized.  "  The  earliest  history  of 
those  people  bursts  upon  us."  "The  primitive 
man,"  as  Dr.  Taylor  Lewis  remarks,  "was  a 
splendid  being,  not  scientific  nor  civilized,  it  is 
true,  in  our  modern  sense  of  the  words,  yet  pos- 
sessing grand  powers  of  body  and  mind."  Those 
primitive  men  aimed  at  great  things.  They  were 
pioneers ;  they  colonized  countries,  as  England, 
France,  and  Germany  have  been  doing  for  the 
last  century.  They  organized  governments,  they 
reared  mighty  pyramids  and  temples,  and  con- 
structed dikes  and  canals.  In  the  land  of  Shina, 
and  in  the  time  of  Nimrod,  they  builded  cities  of 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  99 

immense  proportions.  There  were  grouped  about 
Nineveh  such  cities  as  Calah,  Dur  Sagina,  Tarbisa, 
Arbel,  Khazeh,  and  Asshur,  whose  ruins  bespeak 
the  "  vast  ambition  and  mighty  energy  of  their 
builders."  The  banks  of  the  Tigris,  lower  down, 
present  an  almost  unbroken  line  of  ruins  from 
Tekrit  to  Bagdad,  while  Babylon  and  Chaldea 
are  studded  in  every  direction  with  mounds  that 
mark  the  ruins  of  great  cities  that  were  founded 
at  the  very  dawn  of  human  history. 

In  addition  to  this  architectural  skill,  those 
primitive  peoples  in  Asia,  as  also  in  Egypt,  had 
a  system  of  astronomy,  a  calendar,  a  knowledge 
of  geometry,  a  system  of  writing,  and  schools  of 
medicine ;  they  gathered  immense  libraries,  and 
could  harden  copper,  embalm  the  dead,  and  do 
other  things  in  ways  we  cannot. 

M.  de  Sarzac  has  been  exceedingly  fortunate  in 
his  explorations  in  Chaldea  (1893-94),  having  dis- 
covered, in  a  depository  which  formed  a  part  of 
the  palace  of  the  ancient  kings  of  that  country, 
nearly  thirty  thousand  tablets  of  baked  clay 
covered  with  cuneiform  inscriptions.  From  these 
and  other  facts  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  that 
as  many  as  four  thousand  years  before  Christ 
Chaldea  was  a  rich  and  prosperous  country.  Her 
people  herded  cattle,  raised  different  crops,  culti- 
vated several  of  the  useful  arts,  and  were  so  far 
advanced  (?)  as  to  drink  fermented  liquor. 


100  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

Speaking  of  the  period  between  2800  and  3800 
B.C.,  Professor  Robert  W.  Rogers,  who,  perhaps, 
is  better  informed  on  the  early  history  of  Meso- 
potamia than  any  other  Assyriologist  in  our  coun- 
try, says :  "  Those  people  by  some  means  had 
attained  a  high  degree  of  civilization.  They  car- 
ried on  a  wide-extended  commerce,  had  dynas- 
tic forms  of  government  and  a  religious  priest- 
hood. They  employed  the  signs  of  the  zodiac, 
and  in  the  same  order  as  we  do ;  and,  what  is  still 
more  remarkable,  they  had  the  seven  days  of  the 
week  designated  by  the  names  of  their  gods  in 
the  same  order  and  having  the  same  characteris- 
tics as  ours.  In  their  schools  two  languages  were 
taught,  the  Assyrian  and  Sumerian,  and  their 
diplomatists  had  knowledge  of  a  third,  the 
Aramaic,  which  was  the  universal  language  for 
communication  in  that  day,  as  was  French  a  half- 
century  ago  in  Europe,  and  as  English  is  largely 
to-day  the  language  of  commerce.  We  have  rec- 
ords of  a  dissolution  of  a  partnership  recorded  in 
their  month  corresponding  to  January,  with  the 
sum  allotted  to  the  retiring  partner,  as  fully  and 
minutely  set  forth  four  thousand  years  ago  as  if 
the  article  had  been  drawn  last  January  by  an 
American  lawyer.  On  another  tablet  is  set  forth 
the  sale  of  a  house  and  lot,  with  price,  executed 
in  due  Babylonian  form,  those  of  the  one  party 
signing  their  names,  those  of  the  other,  not  being 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  101 

able  to  write,  '  making  their  mark '  with  their 
thumb-nail  on  the  plastic  clay.  We  have  three 
hundred  letters  of  the  kings  of  Assyria,  Babylon, 
and  Egypt,  written  upon  matters  of  state  more 
than  fourteen  centuries  before  Christ,  that  are 
models  of  courtesy  and  directness." 

Lockyer,  in  his  book  entitled  "  Nature,"  has 
shown  that  long  before  the  Mosaic  age  the  dwell- 
ers by  the  Euphrates  and  the  Nile  had  mapped 
out  the  heavens,  ascertained  the  movements  of 
the  moon  and  planets,  established  the  zodiacal 
signs,  discriminated  the  poles  of  the  ecliptic  and 
the  equator,  ascertained  the  laws  of  eclipses  and 
the  precession  of  the  equinoxes,  and,  in  fact,  had 
worked  out  all  the  astronomical  data  which  can 
be  learned  by  observation,  and  had  applied  them 
to  practical  uses.  Lockyer  does  not  hesitate  to 
say  that  this  knowledge  prevailed  as  far  back  as 
the  post-glacial  or  antediluvian  period. 

Tomkins,  in  his  "  Papers  on  the  Lists  of  Thoth- 
mes  III.  at  Karnak,"  likewise  furnishes  unan- 
swerable evidence  that  a  degree  of  civilization 
had  been  reached  in  the  countries  around  the 
Mediterranean,  even  before  the  time  of  Moses, 
that  is  an  astonishment  to  the  evolutionist  who 
still  clings  to  his  naturalism. 

The  same  essentially  is  to  be  said  of  Egypt. 
There  is  no  evidence  of  infancy  in  the  architec- 
ture and  art  of  that  country.     No  longer  is  there 


102  EVOLUTION  Ok  CREATION? 

any  doubt  that  the  pyramids  and  the  imposing 
structures  of  Thebes  and  Memphis  are  the  work 
of  Egyptians  whose  ancestors,  only  a  few  gener- 
ations earlier,  had  taken  possession  of  those  ter- 
ritories, and  who  were  among  the  earliest  men 
who  are  known  to  have  inhabited  the  earth.  In- 
deed, the  further  back  one  goes  the  more  per- 
fect the  architecture  and  art  of  Egypt  are  found 
to  be. 

The  statue  of  King  Rephren,  the  builder  of  the 
second  pyramid  at  Ghizeh,  "  is  equal  in  anatomi- 
cal truth,"  says  Professor  Richard  Owen,  "  to 
any  work  by  Michael  Angelo."  M.  Jacques  de 
Morgan,  the  French  director-general  of  Egyptian 
antiquities,  in  reports  just  made  public,  thinks  he 
has  found  the  earliest  Egyptian  tombs  yet  dis- 
covered, and  that  they  antedate  by  many  centu- 
ries any  heretofore  examined.  In  those  tombs, 
estimated  to  have  been  used  twenty-three  to 
twenty-eight  hundred  years  before  Christ,  are 
artistic  fresco  decorations  such  as  indicate  a  high 
state  of  civilization.  In  the  White  Pyramid  was 
found  a  crown  of  rare  workmanship  lying  on  the 
remains  of  one  of  the  Egyptian  princesses.  It  is 
made  of  gold  inlaid  with  precious  stones,  the  vari- 
ous parts  being  joined  together  by  perfect  Maltese 
crosses. 

Speaking  of  the  artistic  design  and  workman- 
ship of  this  and  other  ornaments  lately  discovered, 


hypothesis  of  evolution  los 

M.  Morgan  declares  that  "  the  gilded  heiresses  of 
to-day  have  nothing  daintier  or  richer  than  these 
articles  in  the  way  of  ornaments." 

In  the  coffin  of  the  Princess  Ita,  buried  at  least 
twenty-four  hundred  years  before  Christ,  was 
found  a  beautiful  dagger,  the  blade  of  bronze  and 
the  handle  of  gold,  inlaid  with  carnelian,  emerald, 
and  lapis  lazuli. 

Human  heads,  copied  by  Petrie  from  Egyptian 
tombs,  show  that  the  physical  features  of  all  the 
peoples  inhabiting  the  surrounding  countries  were 
well  known  to  those  early  Egyptians,  whose  draw- 
ings prove  that  they  were  well  advanced  in  art 
scholarship. 

Tomkins  closes  a  paper  on  the  "  Knowledge  of 
Geography  among  the  Ancient  Egyptians "  in 
these  words :  "  The  Egyptians,  dwelling  in  their 
green,  warm  river-course,  and  on  the  watered 
levels  of  their  Fayoum  and  Delta,  were  yet  a 
very  enterprising  people,  full  of  curiosity,  literary, 
scientific  in  method,  admirable  delineators  of  na- 
ture, skilled  surveyors,  makers  of  maps,  trained 
and  methodical  administrators  of  domestic  and 
foreign  affairs,  kept  alert  by  the  movements  of 
their  great  river  and  by  the  necessities  of  com- 
merce, which  forced  them  to  the  Syrian  forests 
for  their  building  timber,  and  to  Kush  and  Pun 
for  their  precious  furniture  woods  and  ivory,  to 
say  nothing  of  incense,  aromatics,  cosmetics,  as- 


104  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

phalt,  exotic  plants,  and  pet  and  strange  animals, 
with  a  hundred  other  needful  things." 

What  is  still  most  remarkable  is  the  fact  that, 
as  early  as  the  fifth  dynasty,  there  were  in  use 
among  the  people  of  Egypt  ethical  treatises,  some 
of  whose  maxims,  recently  deciphered,  scarcely 
can  be  improved.  Later,  during  the  pyramid 
dynasty,  there  were  composed  epic  poems,  ex- 
tolling the  deeds  of  Rameses  II.,  "  the  Sesos- 
tris  of  history,"  that  remind  the  reader  of  some 
of  the  most  heroic  passages  of  the  matchless 
Homer. 

Dr.  Dawson,  grouping  the  discoveries  already 
referred  to  with  those  of  Birch  and  of  Glaser,  as 
summarized  by  Sayce,  says  in  substance  that  in 
the  art  of  geodesy,  and  in  allied  arts  also,  the  Egyp- 
tians long  before  the  time  of  Moses  had  attained  a 
perfection  never  since  excelled,  so  that  our  most 
approved  instruments  can  detect  no  errors  in  very 
old  measurements  and  levelings.  The  arts  of  arch- 
itecture, metallurgy,  and  weaving  had  attained  to 
the  highest  development.  Canalization  and  irri- 
gation, with  their  consequent  agriculture  and  cat- 
tle-breeding, were  old  and  well-understood  arts. 
Sculpture  and  painting  in  the  age  of  Moses  had 
attained  their  acme,  and  were  falling  into  conven- 
tional styles.  Law  and  the  arts  of  government 
had  become  fixed  and  settled.  Theology  and 
morals,  and  the  doctrine  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ments, had  been  elaborated  into  complex  systems. 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  105 

There  was  also  an  abundance  of  poetical  and 
imaginative  literature.  There  were  treatises  on 
medicine  and  other  useful  arts.  At  the  court 
of  Pharaoh  diplomatic  correspondence  was  carried 
on  with  all  parts  of  the  civilized  world,  in  many 
languages  and  in  various  forms  of  writing,  includ- 
ing that  of  Egypt  itself,  that  of  Chaldea,  and 
probably  also  the  alphabetical  writing  afterward 
used  by  the  Hebrews,  Phenicians,  and  Greeks, 
which  seems  to  have  originated  at  a  very  early 
period  among  the  Mineans,  or  Punites,  of  south- 
ern Arabia.  There  were  institutions  of  various 
grades,  from  ordinary  schools  to  universities.  In 
the  latter  were  professors  of  astronomy,  geog- 
raphy, mining,  theology,  history,  and  languages, 
as  well  as  of  many  of  the  higher  technical  arts. 
And  a  college  song  of  earlier  date  than  that  of 
Moses  has  been  preserved,  another  piece  of  evi- 
dence that  what  has  been  supposed  to  be  of  recent 
origin  is  really  as  primitive  as  the  age  of  the  pa- 
triarchs.    (See  "  Records  of  the  Past.") 

But  Asia  and  Egypt  are  not  alone  in  report- 
ing the  early  civilization  of  the  human  family. 
In  the  South  Sea  Islands,  in  Iceland,  in  Mexico, 
and  in  South  America  there  are  unmistakable 
evidences  of  an  "  early  and  superior  people  and 
a  departed  civilization." 

Perhaps  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  all 
efforts  to  harmonize  these  early  civilizations  with 
a  slow  or  gradual  evolution,  or  with  other  natural- 


J 


106  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

istic  theories,  have  proved  utterly  abortive.  The 
theory  of  a  "  savagism,"  so  much  talked  of  among 
naturalists — the  theory  that  the  race  began  in  a 
savage  state,  and  slowly  worked  up  to  its  present 
condition,  consuming  in  this  development  at  least 
one  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  years — in  the 
presence  of  established  facts  is  an  assumption  as 
preposterous  as  can  be  imagined.  There  is  not 
a  shadow  of  foundation  for  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  sudden  emergence  from 
a  savage  state  to  one  represented  by  the  civili- 
zation of  Assyria,  Babylon,  Egypt,  and  of  other 
countries  is  not  an  emergence  now  taking  place 
anywhere  on  earth.  It  never  has  taken  place, 
and,  in  the  nature  of  things,  never  can  take  place, 
unless  there  is  something  supernatural,  outside  of 
the  savage  state,  that  comes  to  its  aid. 

We  may  be  permitted  to  suggest  at  this  point 
that  if  the  Bible  account  of  the  beginning  of  the 
human  race  is  admitted  as  authentic,  then  all 
these  difficulties  vanish.  If  Adam  had  a  fully 
endowed  body  and  mind ;  if  Cain,  the  son  of  the 
first  man,  builded  a  city  (Gen.  iv.  17);  if  Cain's 
son  Jubal  handled  the  harp  and  the  organ  (Gen. 
iv.  21),  and  if  Jubal's  brother,  Tubal-cain,  was  a 
worker  in  brass  and  iron  (Gen.  iv.  22),  then  the 
early  civilizations  of  Asia  and  Egypt  are  no  longer 
perplexing  mysteries,  but  are  precisely  what  would 
be  expected. 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  107 

III.    MONKEYS 

What  relation  exists  between  monkeys  and  the 
human  family  is  a  question  that  has  been  under 
frequent  discussion.  But,  as  some  of  our  readers 
very  well  know,  the  attempts  that  for  a  long  time 
were  making  to  show  how  man  might  be  devel- 
oped from  the  monkey  have  been  abandoned  of 
late  by  the  whole  army  of  naturalistic  scientists. 
This  abandonment  was  necessitated  in  conse- 
quence of  the  curious  fact,  formerly  overlooked, 
but  now  acknowledged  by  every  scientist  who 
has  given  thought  to  the  subject,  that  the  mon- 
key nature  or  constitution,  as  already  suggested, 
is  such  that  the  more  it  is  developed  the  more  of 
a  monkey  and  the  less  of  a  man  the  monkey  be- 
comes. 

Professor  Oskar  Peschel,  in  his  treatise  on  the 
races  of  man,  states  the  case  thus :  "  Before 
the  change  of  teeth  has  begun  the  brain  of  the 
ape  has  usually  attained  its  completion,  whereas 
in  the  child  its  proper  development  is  just  then 
actively  beginning.  In  the  apes,  on  the  contrary, 
the  facial  bones  grow  in  an  animal  direction,  so 
that  finally  the  largest  ape  has  the  brain  of  a  child 
and  the  jaws  of  an  ox.  Hence  it  follows  that  a 
man  would  never  originate  from  the  progressive 
evolution  of  the  apes,  for  their  development  is 
directed  to  different  ends,  and  the  longer  they 


108  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

advance  toward  these  ends  the  greater  are  the 
contrasts." 

Finding  that  the  former  theory  of  evolution 
from  the  monkey  is  no  longer  tenable,  several 
naturalists  took  refuge  under  a  "maybe "or  "per- 
haps." That  is,  "perhaps  there  were  other  spe- 
cies of  the  ape  family  that  could  have  developed 
into  man." 

As  a  specimen  of  this  utterly  unscientific 
method  of  reasoning  that  too  freely  is  indulged, 
we  submit  the  following  from  the  pen  of  Professor 
Haeckel :  "  Our  ape-like  ancestors  are  long  since 
extinct.  Perchance  their  fossil  remains  may  some 
time  be  found  in  the  tertiary  deposits  of  south- 
ern Asia  or  Africa.  They  must  nevertheless  be 
ranked  among  the  tailless  catarrhine  anthropoid 
apes." 

It  is  perfectly  obvious  why  Professor  Haeckel 
puts  in  this  plea  that  a  higher  and  distinct  ape- 
like ancestor  for  the  human  family  may  some- 
where, sometime,  perchance,  be  found.  It  is  be- 
cause of  the  discovery  just  mentioned  that,  in 
the  process  of  evolution,  all  monkeys  now  known 
to  science,  if  they  develop  at  all,  must  develop 
away  from  instead  of  toward  the  human  family, 
and  also  because  of  another  troublesome  dis- 
covery, namely,  that  the  same  gap  or  gulf  be- 
tween man  and  the  ape,  with  undiminished 
breadth  and  depth,  goes  back  to  the  first  appear- 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  109 

ance  of  man.  The  first  monkey  was  a  monkey, 
and  the  first  man  was  a  man  and  nothing  else,  a 
fact  that  is  not  explicable  on  the  ground  that 
man,  who  has  lived  on  this  earth  only  since  the 
ice  age,  is  a  development  from  the  monkey  family. 

IV.    HUMAN    DEGENERACY 

What  already  has  been  said  as  to  degeneracy 
and  elaboration  in  the  brute  world  applies  almost 
with  equal  force  to  the  human  race. 

The  modern  Egyptian  who  lives  in  a  mud- walled 
hut  certainly  is  a  backward  or  a  downhill  evolution 
from  the  Egyptian  who  lived  in  royal  palaces. 
Some  of  the  peoples  of  Mexico  and  South  Amer- 
ica, who  are  scarcely  more  than  half  civilized,  are 
beyond  question  a  degeneration  from  peoples  who 
give  evidence  of  having  ranked  in  some  of  the 
higher  attainments  with  the  ancient  Greeks  and 
Romans.  Likewise  the  poor  Eskimo  of  Greenland 
is  not  an  elaborated  monkey,  but  a  degenerate 
descendant  from  the  enterprising  and  noble  Dane 
who  colonized  that  country  in  1406  A.D. 

The  prehistoric  cliff-dwellers  of  our  southwest 
country,  as  Mr.  Frank  Hamilton  Cushing,  Pro- 
fessor Amos  P.  Brown,  Professor  E.  D.  Cope,  and 
Dr.  John  Harshberger  clearly  have  shown,  dwelt 
in  communities,  had  tools  of  husbandry,  dealt  in 
the  various  commodities  of  daily  life,  such  as  corn, 


110  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

cotton-seed,  and  wrapping-paper  made  of  corn 
husks.  In  a  word,  the  theory  of  savagism  finds 
no  support  in  the  life  and  habits  of  the  cave- 
dwellers  ;  and  what  is  true  of  them  is  equally  true 
of  the  mound-builders  of  our  western  country. 

Linguistic  science,  if  possible,  makes  out  a  still 
stronger  case  in  proof  of  human  degeneracy.  Wil- 
helm  von  Humboldt's  putting  of  the  matter  is 
brief,  but  has  in  it  a  wealth  of  suggestion  :  "  Man 
is  man  only  by  means  of  speech ;  but  in  order  to 
invent  speech  he  must  be  already  man."  We  may 
add,  he  must  be  a  man  of  very  high  order.  But 
speech  is  as  ancient  as  the  race. 

We  ought  not  to  weary  the  reader  with  too 
many  items  of  evidence  of  what  we  are  saying, 
but  may  call  attention  to  one  class  of  phenomena 
found  in  what  Cannon  Farrar  calls  the  sporadic 
family  of  languages ;  those,  he  means,  that  are 
spoken  by  different  and  scattered  tribes  of  the 
human  family  not  included  among  either  the 
Aryan  or  Semitic  families.  These  sporadic 
tongues,  for  the  larger  part,  are  uncivilized,  but 
in  every  one  of  them  there  is  unmistakable  evi- 
dence that  they  had  an  honorable  ancestry.  It 
is  the  judgment  of  such  linguists  as  Du  Ponceau, 
Charlevoix,  Appleyard,  Threlkeld,  Caldwell,  Dr. 
Latham,  and  Max  Miiller  that  many  branches  of 
the  sporadic  family  of  languages  have  such  rich- 
ness of  expression,  and  are  so  perfect  and  artistic. 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  111 

in  structure,  that  they  could  not  possibly  have 
been  wrought  into  their  present  forms  by  the 
peoples  now  speaking  them.  The  rational,  and 
the  only  rational,  conclusion  is  that  those  who 
now  speak  these  tongues  must  have  sprung  from 
an  ancestry  who,  in  character  and  culture,  were 
far  in  advance  of  their  descendants. 

One  of  the  most  recent  and  careful  authorities 
on  the  languages  of  the  American  aborigines  is 
Mr.  Horatio  Hale.  In  a  paper  published  in  the 
"  Transactions  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Canada  " 
he  announces,  as  the  conclusion  of  his  investiga- 
tions, the  unqualified  conviction  that  "  the  origi- 
nal framers  or  users  of  the  languages  of  America 
were  a  cultivated  and  an  intellectual  people,  and 
these  tongues  as  they  are  now  spoken  are  a  clear 
case  of  race  degeneration." 

It  may  not  be  a  piece  of  welcome  news,  in  the 
face  of  all  the  boasted  progress  of  the  world,  that 
there  are  indications  that  human  degeneracy  is 
more  extended  in  its  blight  than  we  had  supposed, 
and  that  it  still  is  going  on. 

The  recent  discussion  of  this  subject  by  Baron 
Nordenskiold,  in  proof  of  degeneracy,  has  been 
criticized  severely,  and,  while  some  of  his  state- 
ments are  questionable  and  some  of  his  conclu- 
sions may  not  be  sound,  still  that  he  makes  out 
on  the  whole  a  case  of  considerable  merit  no 
thoughtful  person  will  question.     Degeneracy,  he 


112  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

insists,  is  not  sporadic,  local,  and  occasional,  but 
is  a  tendency  in  every  country  and  among  every 
people.  In  proof  of  this  he  calls  attention  to  the 
frequency  with  which  brains  are  met  that  are  in- 
capable of  normal  working ;  to  the  universality  of 
nervous  irritability ;  to  the  undue  predominance 
of  emotion ;  to  the  feebleness  of  will  power ;  to 
the  gradual  disappearance  among  the  masses  of 
the  sense  of  duty,  and  to  the  existing  looseness  in 
morals  among  the  so-called  upper  classes  of  soci- 
ety. These  facts,  he  claims,  point  to  a  backward 
tendency  so  strong  that  the  race  by  ordinary  re- 
form methods  will  not  soon  reach  the  ideal  which 
naturalism  places  before  it ;  indeed,  seemingly  by 
natural  agencies  it  never  can  reach  that  ideal. 

Dr.  John  Berry  Haycraft,  in  his  recent  work 
entitled  "  Darwinism  and  Race  Progress,"  from  a 
slightly  different  point  of  view  reaches  conclusions 
similar  to  those  announced  by  Nordenskiold.  He 
divides  the  race  into  two  classes :  the  capables 
and  the  incapables.  In  the  first  class  are  included 
enterprising,  ambitious,  and  successful  people. 
In  the  second  are  those  having  the  opposite  char- 
acteristics. And  then,  after  pointing  out  the  fact 
that  imbecility,  disease,  and  evil  tendencies  are 
passed  on  from  one  generation  to  another,  he 
shows,  what  no  one  can  doubt,  that  it  is  not 
the  progeny  of  the  first,  but  of  the  second  class, 
that  is  on  the  speedier  increase  and,  from  some 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  113 

points  of  view,  is  multiplying  with  an  alarming 
rapidity. 

The  outcome,  if  there  is  not  a  change  for  the 
better,  or  unless  a  merciful  providence,  as  in  other 
times,  by  some  sudden  catastrophe  shall  cut  short 
the  career  of  humanity,  is  inevitable. 

With  prophetic  forecast,  the  New  Testament 
prophets,  Peter  in  his  epistles,  Jude  in  his,  and 
Paul  in  some  of  his,  no  less  unmistakably  make 
the  announcement  that  degeneracy  shall  be  the 
record  on  the  closing  pages  of  the  world's  history. 
And  the  blessed  Master  himself,  though  not  un- 
mindful of  the  coming  good,  foresaw  the  reign 
of  evil  continuing  and  increasing  to  the  later  and 
latest  times. 

Now,  whatever  may  be  our  views  of  the  imme- 
diate future  of  the  human  race,  this  will  be  con- 
ceded, that,  if  there  are  any  means  or  agencies 
that  can  check  its  impending  degeneracy  and 
doom,  they  are  not  extent  of  territory,  immense 
wealth,  material  aggrandizement,  intellectual  at- 
tainments, advancement  of  science,  physical, 
mechanical,  or  economic,  nor  any  other  schemes 
of  naturalism ;  for  all  such  have  been  tried  re- 
peatedly, and  just  as  repeatedly  have  miserably 
failed  to  accomplish  the  benefits  looked  for.  As- 
syria, Babylon,  Egypt,  Greece,  and  Rome  are  im- 
posing and  solemn  monuments  of  national  degen- 
eracy, in  spite  of  a  high  degree  of  civilization. 


114  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  agencies  that  have 
been  helpful  and  that  afford  a  measure  of  confi- 
dence are  Christian  enterprises  and  philanthro- 
pies, Christian  education,  churches,  and  associa- 
tions. And  in  this  hour  of  political  misrule,  of 
lust  for  money  and  power,  of  evil-doing,  and  of 
irreligion,  no  one  is  in  danger  of  overweighing 
the  significance  and  importance  of  the  Christian 
spirit  and  faith  that  inspire  the  great  religious 
movements  of  the  day,  and  that  carry  on  the  be- 
neficent and  redemptive  philanthropies  of  the 
world,  without  which  the  human  race,  so  far  as 
we  now  can  judge,  would  make  a  pretty  rapid 
plunge  headlong  into  perdition,  physical,  mental, 
and  spiritual. 

V.  OPINIONS  ANTAGONISTIC  TO  THE  HYPOTH- 
ESIS THAT  MAN  IS  THE  PRODUCT  OF  EVO- 
LUTION 

In  concluding  this  part  of  the  discussion  on 
naturalistic  evolution  in  its  application  to  the 
human  family,  we  offer  the  following  quotations 
in  support  of  the  indictment  already  charged 
against  it. 

Dr.  Wallace,  while  continuing  to  cling  to  the 
belief  that  man's  body  may  have  been  developed 
from  lower  animals  by  natural  selection,  disclaims 
the  possibility  of  any  such  origin  for  man's  intel- 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  115 

lectual  and  moral  faculties.  "  These  faculties," 
he  says,  "could  not  have  been  so  developed,  but 
must  have  had  another  origin  ;  and  for  this  origin 
we  can  only  find  an  adequate  cause  in  the  unseen 
universe  of  spirit."  These  words  of  Wallace  re- 
mind the  reader  of  those  spoken  by  Sir  Thomas 
Browne  :  "  There  is  surely  a  piece  of  deity  in  us  — 
something  that  was  before  the  elements  and  owes 
no  homage  to  the  sun." 

Professor  Romanes,  in  his  "  Darwin  and  after 
Darwin,"  in  the  following  quotation  appears  to 
have  adopted  the  opinion  advocated  by  a  score 
of  other  leading  scientists  of  the  present  time, 
that  "  there  cannot  have  been  any  such  enormous 
reaches  of  unrecorded  time  as  would  be  implied 
by  the  supposition  of  there  having  been  a  lost 
history  of  organic  evolution  before  the  time  man 
appears  upon  the  earth." 

Professor  Dana  speaks  much  in  the  same  vein : 
"  Man's  origin  has  thus  far  no  sufficient  explana- 
tion from  science.  .  .  .  The  abruptness  of  tran- 
sition from  preceding  forms  is  most  extraordinary, 
and  especially  because  it  occurs  so  near  to  the 
present  time.  In  the  highest  man-ape  the  near- 
est allied  of  living  species  has  the  capacity  of  the 
cranium  but  thirty-four  cubic  inches,  while  the 
skeleton  throughout  is  not  fitted  for  an  erect  posi- 
tion, and  the  fore  limbs  are  essential  to  locomo- 
tion ;    but  in  the    lowest  of  existing    men    the 


116  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

capacity  of  the  cranium  is  sixty-eight  cubic 
inches,  every  bone  is  made  and  adjusted  for  the 
erect  position,  and  the  fore  limbs,  instead  of  being 
required  in  locomotion,  are  wholly  taken  from  the 
ground  and  have  other  and  higher  uses." 

In  his  very  latest  treatise,  "  Manual  of  Geol- 
ogy "  (1895),  Professor  Dana  repeats  in  another 
form  these  same  convictions :  "  The  search  for 
missing  links  has  been  carried  forward  with 
deep  interest  during  recent  years.  But,  although 
fossil  skeletons  have  been  found  among  the  re- 
mains of  Pleistocene  mammals  in  Europe  and 
America,  none  show  any  indication  of  departure 
from  erect  posture,  or  have  smaller  brain  cavity 
than  occurs  among  existing  races  of  men.   .   .   . 

"  Whatever  the  result  of  further  search,  we  may 
feel  assured,  in  accord  with  Wallace,  who  shares 
with  Darwin  in  the  authorship  of  the  theory  of 
natural  selection,  that  the  intervention  of  a  power 
above  nature  was  at  the  basis  of  man's  develop- 
ment. Believing  that  nature  exists  through  the 
will  and  ever-acting  power  of  the  divine  Being, 
and  all  its  great  truths,  its  beauties,  its  harmonies, 
are  manifestations  of  his  wisdom  and  power,  or, 
in  the  words  nearly  of  Wallace,  that  the  whole 
universe  is  not  merely  dependent  on,  but  actually 
is  the  will  of,  one  supreme  intelligence,  nature, 
with  man  as  its  culminant  species,  is  no  longer  a 
mystery." 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  117 

Professor  Joseph  Le  Conte,  in  his  geological 
treatise,  is  no  less  pronounced  :  "  From  the  purely 
structural  and  animal  point  of  view,  man  is  very 
closely  united  with  the  animal  kingdom.  He  has 
no  department  of  his  own,  but  belongs  to  the 
vertebrate  department,  along  with  quadrupeds, 
birds,  reptiles,  and  fishes.  He  has  no  class  of  his 
own,  but  belongs  to  the  class  Mammalia,  along 
with  quadrupeds.  Neither  has  he  an  order  of  his 
own,  but  belongs  to  the  order  of  Primates,  along 
with  monkeys,  lemurs,  etc.  Even  a  family  of  his 
own,  the  Hominidae,  is  grudgingly  admitted  by 
some.  But  from  the  psychical  point  of  view  it  is 
simply  impossible  to  overestimate  the  space  which 
separates  man  from  all  lower  things.  Man  must 
be  set  off  not  only  against  the  animal  kingdom, 
but  against  the  whole  of  nature  besides  as  an 
equivalent.  Nature  the  book,  the  revelation,  and 
man  the  interpreter. 

"  So  in  the  history  of  the  earth.  From  one 
point  of  view  the  era  of  man  is  not  equivalent  to 
an  era,  nor  to  an  age,  nor  to  a  period,  nor  even 
to  an  epoch.  But  from  another  point  of  view  it 
is  the  equivalent  of  the  whole  geological  history 
of  the  earth  besides ;  for  the  history  of  the  earth 
finds  its  consummation  and  its  interpreter  and  its 
significance  in  man." 

The  noted  evolutionist,  Virchow,  already 
quoted,  makes  the  following  similar   confession: 


118  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

"  There  always  exists  a  sharp  line  of  demarca- 
tion between  man  and  the  ape.  We  cannot  pro- 
nounce it  a  conquest  proved  by  science  that  man 
descends  from  the  ape,  or  from  any  other  animal." 

Now  what  these  authorities  are  saying  is  this : 
that  there  are  no  provisions  yet  made  by  natural- 
ism, or  that  can  be  made  by  it,  to  bridge  over  the 
mighty  gulf  that  lies  between  man  and  all  the 
lower  orders  of  creation. 

In  this  and  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  pre- 
sented some  of  the  evidence  and  some  of  the 
authorities  in  support  of  the  assertion  made  near 
the  beginning  of  this  section,  that  there  is  not  a 
particle  of  evidence  that  one  genus  or  clearly 
marked  species  of  animal  ever  has  or  ever  can 
move  on  and  up  into  another;  and  that  there  is 
not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  any  order  of  ani- 
mal ever  has  or  ever  can  reach  a  point  where, 
slowly  or  suddenly,  it  can  come  into  posses- 
sion of  a  human  body  or  a  human  mind.  We 
leave  the  reader  to  judge  whether  the  case  is 
made  out,  and  whether  we  are  justified  in  mak- 
ing this  concluding  statement :  In  view  of  the  facts 
before  us,  it  is  utterly  unscientific  and,  if  we  may 
speak  all  our  mind,  it  is  downright  idiocy  for  men 
to  parade,  on  the  street  or  in  the  church  or 
through  the  press  or  on  the  platform,  these  ex- 
ploded theories  of  evolution  by  natural  selection 
or  by  the  survival  of  the  fittest  as  if  they  still 


HYPOTHESIS  OF  EVOLUTION  119 

were  current  in  the  scientific  world.  They  are 
not  current.  They  are  gone  to  decay,  or,  to 
change  the  figure,  they  are  wrecked;  and  men 
who  still  cling  to  them  ought  to  have  discovered 
before  this  time  that  they  are  not  on  shipboard, 
but  are  in  the  water  and  are  clinging  to  nothing 
but  pieces  of  planks,  broken  spars,  or  other  wreck- 
age. 


CHAPTER   VI 

Enterprise   in   Apes  and    Missing   Links 

i.  naturalism  in  close  quarters 

OUR  friends,  the  evolutionists  of  the  naturalistic 
school,  may  answer  back  that  a  lack  of  evidence 
does  not  disprove  the  possibility  of  whatever  has 
been  claimed  for  evolution.  That  is  true,  and 
certainly  we  have  no  objection  to  such  an  answer. 
But  if,  after  the  presentation  of  the  foregoing  facts 
and  opinions,  the  only  reply  which  can  be  made 
is  that  a  lack  of  evidence  does  not  disprove  the 
possibility  of  evolution,  then  naturalism  must  be 
hard  pressed,  and  those  who  make  such  reply  and 
still  cling  to  naturalism  have  forfeited  the  right 
to  stand  among  those  who  properly  may  be  called 
logicians,  philosophers,  or  scientists. 

The  temper  shown  in  this  remark  makes  it 
quite  easy  to  offer  another  rather  defiant  propo- 
sition, which  is  this :  all  efforts  of  the  advocates 
of  evolution  to  bring  man  and  woman  upon  this 
earth  through  what  are  termed  natural  processes 
1 20 


ENTERPRISE  IN  APES  AND  MISSING  LINKS  121 

not  only  have  been  unsuccessful,  but  the  reason- 
ing employed  has  been  in  violation  of  the  sound- 
est principles  of  logic,  and,  under  close  scrutiny, 
in  not  a  few  instances  has  been  extremely  ridicu- 
lous. The  persistence  shown  has  been  commen- 
dable, for  not  a  stone  has  been  left  unturned ; 
but  the  stone-turning  has  resulted  in  nothing  for 
naturalism  except  torn  fingers  and  empty  hands. 

To  make  this  statement  more  manifest,  and 
confining  attention  to  the  original  appearance  of 
man  and  woman  on  the  earth,  we  note  once  more 
the  three  hypotheses  concerning  this  subject. 

First,  there  were  no  first  man  and  woman ;  but, 
by  numberless  intermediate  steps,  there  were 
gradual  developments  up  through  ape-like  ani- 
mals, extending  through  millions  of  years,  all 
changes  being  carried  on,  however,  by  such  slow 
and  gradual  processes  that  the  advance  from  the 
higher  brute  to  the  lower  man  and  woman  was 
unmarked  and  imperceptible. 

Second,  there  were  a  first  man  and  woman,  but 
they  came  through  evolution  in  the  following 
way  :  a  certain  order  of  brutes,  when  it  had  made 
sufficient  attainment,  suddenly  was  transformed 
by  natural  or  supernatural  agencies  into  the  orig- 
inal man  and  woman. 

Third,  the  first  man  and  woman  appeared  on 
the  earth  by  supernatural  creation  at  a  definite 
time,  having  no  historic  or  organic  or  vital  con- 


122  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

nection  of  any  sort  with  any  of  the  monkey  races, 
or  with  any  of  the  preexisting  races  of  animals, 
but  at  the  start  possessed  all  the  essential  charac- 
teristics of  the  existing  races  of  men  and  women. 

The  first  of  these  three  methods,  that  of  evolu- 
tion pure  and  simple,  we  set  aside  because  already 
it  has  been  shown  to  be  destitute  of  any  reliable 
foundation.  The  second  method  claims  a  few 
moments'  attention,  especially  because  it  has  con- 
siderable support  from  the  friends  of  the  Christian 
faith.  It  has  been  defended  in  one  form  or  an- 
otherby  Professor  Lange,  Dr.  Cunningham  Geikie, 
Professors  Drummond,  Dana,  Winchell,  and  a  score 
of  others. 

What  we  propose  is  to  relieve  this  compromise 
measure,  so  far  as  possible,  of  its  scholastic  and 
scientific  phraseology,  presenting  it  in  plain  Eng- 
lish ;  and,  according  to  the  rules  already  given, 
if  it  is  a  wise  hypothesis  it  will  endure  this  test. 

II.    SPECIFIC    STATEMENT    OF    MONKEY   EVOLU- 
TION 

At  this  point  we  do  not  make  inquiry  as  to  the 
origin  of  life.  We  assume  its  presence  on  the  earth, 
and  also  assume  that  life  took  on  higher  and  higher 
forms  until,  thousands  of  years  ago,  a  tadpole,  or 
some  other  animal  of  similar  rank,  came  upon  the 
stage.     Having  this  start,  the  remaining  steps  are 


ENTERPRISE  IN  APES  AND  MISSING  LINKS  123 

supposed  to  be  comparatively  simple  and  easily 
are  provided  for.  Once  having  life  on  the  earth, 
as  a  distinguished  scientist  has  said,  "  we  need 
have  no  more  trouble,  but  can  go  about  our  busi- 
ness." 

Among  the  race  of  tadpoles,  according  to  the 
theory  we  are  reviewing,  one  was  nobler  than  the 
others,  or  had  a  more  helpful  environment,  or  per- 
chance possessed  both  these  advantages.  By  the 
"  use  of  functions  and  parts  "  he  improved  his  two 
talents  until  he  had  other  two. 

By  means  of  an  "  unconscious  intelligence " 
(see  Dr.  Lycock)  he  kept  thinking  that  he  would 
like  to  become  something  besides  a  tadpole.  Be- 
cause of  his  superiority  other  families  of  inferior 
tadpoles  after  a  while  theoretically  could  not  sur- 
vive, and  in  him  was  concentrated  the  genius  of 
his  race.  At  length  there  came  a  moment  when 
all  the  improved  faculties  of  this  surviving  tadpole 
and  all  his  powers  and  nervous  energies  conspired 
to  help  him.  Then,  "  having  a  stimulus  from 
without  and  an  assimilation  within  "  (see  Beneke's 
theory),  or  "  by  a  mere  functional  impulse  "  (see 
Professor  S.  H.  Carpenter),  he  made  a  jump.  He 
cleared  the  gulf,  got  beyond  his  species,  and  found 
himself  to  be  something  other  than  he  was  before. 

In  brief,  we  may  say  he  became  an  ape  of  the 
lowest  possible  order.  And  for  a  tadpole  that 
was  a  most  commendable  and  really  great  achieve- 


124  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

ment ;  indeed,  it  was  a  tremendous  achievement. 
And  though  muddy  pools  for  a  long  time  had 
been  full  of  tadpoles,  this  was  the  first  one  that 
ever  made  such  a  jump;  and  never  since  that 
time  has  any  other  tadpole  succeeded  in  jumping 
beyond  a  frog  pond  ;  at  least,  never  a  one  became 
a  monkey.  This,  therefore,  was  the  most  enter- 
prising tadpole  the  world  ever  has  known.  And 
no  human  being  should  be  ashamed  to  have  on  the 
background  of  his  family  coat  of  arms  a  tadpole. 
Enterprising,  heroic,  noble  tadpole,  we  praise  and 
honor  thee! 

But  whether  this  tadpole  that  became  a  monkey 
was  male  or  female  we  are  not  told ;  we  presume, 
of  course,  he  was  male.  Days  and  years  passed 
in  weariness  and  lonesomeness.  How  could  it 
be  otherwise  ?  There  was  no  helpmeet  for  him. 
At  length,-  after  much  thought  and  desire,  he 
shook  himself,  and,  by  "  an  ineffable  cleavage  " 
(see  Lange's  view  as  to  the  evolution  of  Eve),  or 
by  "  a  functional  impulse,"  to  use  words  familiar 
in  scientific  circles,  this  tadpole-monkey  became 
male  and  female,  and  the  race  of  which  he  was 
federal  head  began  its  career  on  the  earth. 

Other  ages  passed.  Then,  by  "  natural  selec- 
tion "  (Darwin),  and  by  "  the  survival  of  the  fit- 
test "  (Spencer),  or  by  "  the  use  of  functions  and 
parts  "  (Lycock),  this  race  of  monkeys  improved 
its  stock.     And  twenty  thousand  years  ago,  or 


ENTERPRISE  IN  APES  AND  MISSING  LINKS  125 

one  hundred  thousand  years  ago,  or  a  thousand 
million  years  ago — it  is  immaterial  which — there 
came  a  time  when  one  of  this  improved  stock  of 
monkeys  kept  thinking  that  he  would  like  to  be- 
come, not  a  man,  but  a  something  like  a  man — a 
sort  of  black  animal  that  could  walk  like  a  man, 
a  "  pithecanthropus  erectus  "  (Haeckel),  having 
the  form  but  not  the  intellect  of  a  man. 

This  enterprising  monkey  thus  got  the  start  of 
other  monkeys  as  his  ancestor,  the  tadpole,  got 
the  start  of  all  other  tadpoles.  He  kept  thinking 
and  desiring,  and,  as  "  desire  to  see  can  produce 
an  eye,  and  desire  to  walk  can  produce  a  leg  " 
(Darwin),  the  hour  for  the  transmutation  came. 
It  was  an  hour  of  tremendous  importance  and  pos- 
sibilities to  his  monkeyship,  and,  for  that  matter, 
of  magnificent  import  to  humanity.  It  was  an 
hour  when  all  his  faculties,  powers,  and  nervous 
energies  were  strained  to  their  utmost  tension,  and 
something  cracked,  on  the  principle,  perhaps,  of 
the  cracking  of  the  too  small-sized  shell  of  the 
crab,  and  in  that  rapturous  and  rupturous  evolu- 
tion the  fellow  jumped ;  the  chasm  was  cleared ; 
he  got  beyond  his  species,  and  found  himself,  not 
exactly  in  the  human  family,  but  a  something 
"  between  the  Simiidae  and  the  Hominidae  "  (Pro- 
fessor Marsh's  view). 

Now  bear  in  mind  that,  though  there  have 
been  plenty  of  monkeys  in  monkey  lands, — India, 


126  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Malay  Archipelago,  Africa,  and  South  America, 
— and  though  they  have  been  transported  to  all 
other  lands,  and  have  had  the  best  of  environ- 
ments and  inducements,  yet  that  monkey  was  not 
only  the  first  one  that  ever  made  such  a  jump, 
but,  what  is  still  more  astounding,  no  other  one, 
from  that  day  to  this,  ever  has  been  known  to 
jump  at  all,  except  from  one  tree  to  another. 
So  far  as  we  can  judge,  others  have  had  just  the 
same  chance,  but  the  trouble  and  surprise  are  that 
they  never  thought  to  avail  themselves  of  it ;  and, 
what  makes  it  worse  for  naturalism  is  that  the 
thing  or  link  into  which  that  enterprising  monkey 
jumped  is  itself  now  lost.  That  connecting  link, 
including  his  female  companion  and  all  his  de- 
scendants, is  gone.  None  of  them  can  be  found 
anywhere  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  or  anywhere 
under  the  face  of  the  globe,  or  anywhere  in  the 
sea.  There  is  not  a  tombstone,  skull,  shin-bone, 
or  toe-nail  left  of  the  whole  race ;  and  there  is 
nothing  in  the  history  of  this  world  that  has  been 
hunted  for  by  scientific  men  as  has  that  thing,  or 
some  part  of  that  thing,  into  which  the  monkey 
jumped.  The  ablest  scientists  in  all  countries  have 
been  untiring  in  their  efforts  to  find  it ;  fortunes 
have  been  expended  to  find  it ;  lives  have  been 
sacrificed  to  find  it.  But  be  not  discouraged  or 
impatient,  O  mortals !  That  thing  that  the  mon- 
key became  when  he  jumped,  and  from  which  man 


ENTERPRISE  IN  APES  AND  MISSING  LINKS   127 

descended,  "possibly,"  "perhaps,"  "somewhere," 
"  sometime  "  may  be  found.  Professor  Schmidt 
puts  the  case  modestly :  "  What  future  times  may, 
perhaps,  discover  are  intermediate  forms  which  go 
back  to  the  common  point  of  derivation  of  the 
present  apes  and  of  man." 

More  than  once  the  scientist,  in  his  explora- 
tions, has  thought  that  he  has  found  this  missing 
progenitor  of  the  human  family.  The  Neander- 
thal skull  discovered  in  1857  in  a  valley  between 
Elberfeld  and  Dusseldorf,  Prussia,  for  a  time  was 
supposed  to  settle  this  vexed  question.  But  later 
Professor  Owen,  Dr.  Hamy  de  Quatrefages,  Dr. 
Pfaff,  and  Professor  Dorsontook  an  opposite  view ; 
and  the  opinion  may  be  said  now  to  be  established 
that  this  famous  skull  is  unquestionably  human, 
though  a  little  abnormal.  Says  Dr.  Taylor,  in 
his  book  entitled  "  The  Aryans,"  "  Its  precise  age 
is  doubtful,  and  it  would  be  entirely  unsafe  to  re- 
gard it  as  a  type  of  a  special  race,  since  its  char- 
acteristics have  been  occasionally  reproduced  in 
modern  times." 

In  1 89 1  the  scientific  world  again  was  in  a  flut- 
ter of  excitement  over  the  discovery  of  some  curi- 
ous fossils  near  Trinil  in  central  Java.  We  wish 
the  place  were  nearer  home.  These  remains  were 
carefully  examined  by  Von  Eng.  Dubois,  and  pro- 
nounced to  be  unquestionably  those  of  Mr.  Pithe- 
canthropus Erectus,   of  whom  for  a  long  time 


128  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

naturalists  have  been  in  diligent  search.  But 
Professor  Dana  and  others  tell  us  to  move  cau- 
tiously ;  that  at  present  a  judgment  would  be  pre- 
mature ;  for  the  evidence  as  yet  is  not  at  all  con- 
vincing or  satisfactory.  Alas!  we  have  reasons 
for  fearing  that  this  ancestor  of  ours  is  not  an 
ancestor  at  all,  but  only  another  naturalistic  hum- 
bug.    Nevertheless  we  will  keep  on  hoping. 

In  the  meantime  we  continue  our  hypothetical 
biographic  sketch  of  this  missing  link,  this  Simi- 
idae-Hominidae-go-between,  this  most  important 
personage  of  antiquity  prior  to  the  coming  of  man. 

Soon  after  his  elevation  to  the  throne  of  this 
world  he — we  mean  Pithecanthropus  Erectus — 
began  to  feel  his  lonesomeness,  as  his  other  distin- 
guished ancestors  had  done.  He  was  impressed 
by  the  "  courtships  of  moths  and  butterflies " 
going  on  about  him,  that  there  was  something  for 
him  better  than  loneliness.  The  study  of  nature's 
courtships  was  only  an  aggravation.  At  length 
the  desire  came  to  him  that  he  would  like  to  be- 
come two.  Whereupon  an  "  ineffable  cleavage  " 
followed,  and  Mr.  Pithecanthropus  Erectus  be- 
came two,  and  Mrs.  Pithecanthropus  Erectus,  his 
helpmeet,  stood  at  his  side.  As  there  was  no 
other  one  in  the  way,  the  courtship  was  brief,  the 
espousal  was  consummated,  and  this  new  and  noble 
family  of  missing  links  began  its  career  and  peopled 
that  part  of  the  earth — where  they  were  ( ?).    They 


ENTERPRISE  IN  APES  AND  MISSING  LINKS    129 

lived  on  in  this  condition  twelve  million  years  or 
thereabouts,  male  and  female,  marrying  and  giving 
in  marriage,  improving  the  stock  by  natural  selec- 
tion and  by  the  survival  of  the  fittest  through 
each  succeeding  generation.  And  any  one  who, 
through  conceit  or  anything  else,  refuses  to  have 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Pithecanthropus  Erectus  appear  on 
his  family  coat  of  arms  does  not  appreciate  the 
worthy  character  of  his  ancestry. 

In  process  of  time  one  of  the  finest  types  of 
this  lost  family  began  to  think  he  would  like  to 
become  a  man,  be  endowed  with  reason,  have  a 
soul,  be  able  to  worship  God  or  to  curse  things, 
as  occasion  might  require.  These  ideas  made  his 
whole  being  quiver  with  desire  and  expectation. 
The  date  of  these  emotions  is  variously  estimated. 
It  was  either  nine  million  years  ago  (Dr.  Thomas 
Sterry  Hunt,  President  of  the  Bri.ish  Anthropo- 
logical Society),  or  five  hundred  thousand  years 
ago  (Dr.  A.  R.  Wallace),  or  from  two  hundred 
to  three  hundred  thousand  years  ago  (Professor 
to  Fahlrott),  or  one  hundred  thousand  years  ago 
(Dr.  Joseph  Beete  Jukes,  F.R.S.),  or  twenty 
thousand  years  ago  (Dr.  Chevalier  Bunsen),  or 
six  or  eight  thousand  years  ago  (Professor  Alex- 
ander Winchell).  We  sincerely  thank  the  scien- 
tists who  have  given  us  these  generous  time  lati- 
tudes. 

But  we  were  speaking  of  the  mission  of  the 


130  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

"  link,"  which  to  us  is  of  far  greater  importance 
than  the  time  of  the  advent.  As  we  were  saying, 
already  his  eye  was  on  the  other  side  of  the  chasm. 
If  he  could  but  leap  it  he  would  become  a  man! 
What  destinies  hung  on  the  decisions  of  that  hour! 
What,  in  comparison,  were  the  famous  delibera- 
tions of  Caesar  on  the  shores  of  the  Rubicon? 
There  he  stood — not  Csesar,  but  Pithecanthropus 
Erectus.  He  drew  a  long  breath.  Every  mus- 
cle and  nerve  was  taxed  to  its  utmost.  He  made 
a  tremendous  bound,  and,  if  we  may  believe  it, 
and  will  allow  a  mixed  figure  in  harmony  with  the 
scientific  liberties  of  our  day,  Mr.  Pithecanthropus 
Erectus  just  by  the  skin  of  his  teeth  caught  his 
foot  on  the  other  side  of  the  chasm  and — was  a 
man;  had  a  soul;  could  worship  and  swear.  Mag- 
nificent! Ring  the  bells!  But  the  next  moment 
muffle  and  toll  them.  He,  Mr.  Pithecanthropus 
Erectus,  looked  back  over  the  chasm.  His  own 
family,  wife  and  children,  and  all  the  rest  of  his 
race,  attempting  to  follow  him,  went  down,  as  we 
have  said,  into  the  bottom  of  the  Indian  Ocean, 
or  into  some  cave  in  Abyssinia,  or,  as  Professor 
Marsh  thinks,  into  the  later  Tertiary  of  Africa. 
And  Pithecanthropus  Erectus  himself  would  have 
gone  with  the  rest  but  for  his  complete  metamor- 
phosis from  missing  link  to  manhood.  The  law 
of  selection  and  of  election  and  of  the  survival  of 
the  fittest  had  achieved,  however,  its  most  splendid 


ENTERPRISE  IN  APES  AND  MISSING  LINKS  131 

conquest;  and  our  readers  should  bear  in  mind 
that  these  survivals  and  these  leaps  and  metamor- 
phoses are  not  unscientific,  at  least  if  we  may  fol- 
low so  eminent  an  authority  as  Professor  Lyell. 
In  his  "Antiquity  of  Man,"  as  quoted  and  approved 
by  Professor  Mozley  in  his  "  Bampton  Lectures," 
he  says : 

"  If,  in  conformity  with  the  theory  of  progres- 
sion, we  believe  mankind  to  have  risen  slowly 
from  a  rude  and  humble  starting-point,  such  leaps 
[in  intelligence]  may  have  successively  introduced 
not  only  higher  and  higher  forms  and  grades  of 
intelligence,  but,  at  a  much  remoter  period,  may 
have  cleared  at  one  bound  the  space  which  sepa- 
rated the  highest  stage  of  the  unprogressive  in- 
telligence of  the  inferior  animals  from  the  first 
and  lowest  form  of  improvable  reason  manifested 
by  man." 

As  would  be  expected,  this  first  man  was  lone- 
some. He  traversed  hill  and  dale,  but  there  was 
no  companion  for  him.  More  than  once  he  longed 
for  the  fleshpots  from  which  he  and  his  ancestors 
had  eaten  on  the  other  side  of  the  gulf;  unless 
perchance  the  leap  that  was  made  had  "cut  asun- 
der the  identity  of  the  being  which  preceded  it 
and  the  being  which  succeeded  it "  (Professor 
Mozley). 

But  one  day  this  first  man  paused.  His  desire 
for  a  companion  and  helpmeet  became  desperate. 


132  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

He  did  the  only  thing  that  scientifically  could  be 
done;  he  shook  himself.  Thereupon  there  was 
an  "  ineffable  cleavage,"  and  he  became  male  and 
female,  and  in  this  way  the  human  race  began  its 
magnificent  and  its  infamous  career. 

Now  such  we  believe  to  be  as  rational  a  state- 
ment of  the  theory  of  human  evolution,  when 
shorn  of  its  stilted  and  scholastic  nomenclature,  as 
skeptical  scientists,  or  as  good  friends  of  religion, 
such  as  Professors  Lange  and  Drummond,  who 
have  renounced  the  literal  Bible  account  of  crea- 
tion for  a  seminaturalistic  one,  are  able  to  make. 

Sooner  or  later  this  revised  theology,  we  are 
sure,  will  turn  out  to  be  not  the  slightest  relief 
from  the  difficulties  these  men  seek  to  evade,  but 
will  prove  a  trap  for  the  unwary,  and,  if  anything, 
an  easier  path  to  doubt  and  skepticism  than  is  the 
story  as  told  in  Genesis  unadorned  by  exegetical 
ingenuity. 


CHAPTER   VII 

Beginnings,  Periods,  Mosaic  Days,  Types 

i.  scientific   account   of   the   beginning 
of  things 

Thus  far  we  have  been  presenting  objections 
to  various  naturalistic  methods  proposed  for  bring- 
ing man  and  woman  upon  this  earth ;  but  the  pa- 
rading of  objections  is  only  one  part  of  the  critic's 
business,  and  will  be  tolerated  only  for  a  time. 
Hence  we  ought  to  go  no  further  in  the  path  of 
destructive  criticism  without  at  least  suggesting 
some  world-creating  and  world-peopling  methods 
or  schemes  in  place  of  those  we  have  rejected. 

It  may  not  be  good  policy  to  disclose  one's 
purpose  early  in  a  discussion,  especially  if  the 
purpose  is  likely  to  arouse  antagonism,  but  it  is 
honest.  And  an  open  as  well  as  a  secretive  policy 
has  its  advantages  and  compensations. 

The  hypothesis  we  offer  and  attempt  to  defend 
is  this :  the  story  of  creation  as  recorded  in  the 
first  and  second  chapters  of  Genesis  is  a  simple, 
i33 


134  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

straightforward  narrative  of  the  facts  as  they 
actually  occurred.  We  may  remark  in  passing 
that  we  have  less  hesitation  in  adopting  this  hy- 
pothesis on  account  of  the  utter  absence  of  evi- 
dence that  life  came  upon  this  earth  by  any  pro- 
cess known  to  naturalism  or  possible  to  it. 

But  we  cannot  proceed  in  the  discussion  with- 
out first  clearing  the  way,  and  even  then  we  must 
advance  to  the  main  question  by  what  is  known 
as  the  method  of  gradual  approach. 

There  are  three  propositions  that  we  presume 
/  will  be  accepted  by  nearly  all  our  readers :  first, 
for  a  very  long  time  the  earth  was  fitting  for 
human  abode ;  second,  in  the  earth's  history 
there  have  been  six  very  clearly  marked  geologi- 
cal eras ;  third,  in  the  order  of  creation  there  is 
striking  agreement  between  the  geological  periods 
and  the  six  so-called  "  days  of  Moses." 

As  to  the  first  proposition,  that  the  earth  was  a 
long  time  in  fitting  for  human  abode,  there  is  no 
ground  for  controversy. 

In  support  of  the  second  proposition  Professors 
Dana  and  Hitchcock,  Mr.  Hugh  Miller,  Chancel- 
lor Dawson,  Dr.  Phin,  and  others  have  presented 
such  an  array  of  evidence  showing  the  great 
lines  of  cleavage  in  the  earth's  history  that  it 
would  be  folly  to  enter  into  any  dispute  with 
them  even  if  one  were  so  disposed.  We  may  be 
allowed,  however,  to  refresh  the  minds  of  our 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  135 

readers  with  certain  data  bearing  on  this  particu- 
lar phase  of  the  subject 

Starting  with  one  of  the  most  pronounced 
philosophical  postulates  of  modern  times,  that  "  in 
material  things  there  can  be  no  effect  without  an 
adequate  cause,"  and  confining  the  discussion  to 
the  disclosures  of  astronomical  science,  geological 
history,  and  the  chemistry  of  the  universe,  also 
adopting  in  the  main  the  hypothesis  of  Laplace, 
which  at  present,  at  least  with  scientific  men,  is 
in  pretty  general  favor,  we  are  led  directly  to  the 
inference,  if  not  to  the  indisputable  conclusion, 
that  at  some  point  in  eternity  an  adequate  First 
Cause  filled  the  then  existing  void,  or  so  much  of 
it  as  is  now  occupied  by  the  physical  universe,  with 
intensely  illuminated  and  highly  rarefied  "  star 
fire  "  or  "  star  stuff."  The  appearance  of  this  star 
fire,  we  still  further  infer,  must  have  been  instan- 
taneous, for  all  fundamental  and  chemical  changes 
make  no  delay,  but  in  their  movements  are  as  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye. 

After  this  original  creative  act  there  was,  as  has 
been  supposed,  a  period  during  which  the  star 
stuff  condensed,  forming  rings;  then  the  rings 
were  broken  into  distinct  masses  of  fire,  that  sub- 
sequently took  on  the  globe  shape,  constituting 
the  star  universe.  At  that  time  the  earth  and  the 
moon  became  well-defined  suns,  rolling  through 
space,  giving  out  light  and  heat  as  does  the  sun 


136  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

which  now  lights  and  warms  our  planetary  system. 
The  length  of  the  period  during  which  light  stuff 
was  created  and  condensed  into  rings,  and  then 
into  globes  of  fire,  is  past  all  comprehension. 
According  to  the  earlier  estimates  of  Sir  William 
Thomson,  it  could  not  have  been  fewer  than  three 
hundred  million  years. 

As  this  first  period  approached  its  close  or 
evening,  the  earth  fires  burned  less  intensely. 
Later  the  flames  entirely  ceased  to  leap  from  the 
earth's  surface;  they  smoldered;  then  a  solid 
crust  began  to  form,  and  the  surrounding  gases 
condensed,  forming  water  and  acids,  which  were 
precipitated  upon  the  earth,  hastening  its  cooling 
and  also  corroding  and  dissolving  much  of  its  sur- 
face materials.  And  when  the  surface  fires  were 
completely  out  and  when  the  crust  had  fully 
formed,  though  still  hot  enough  to  throw  the  de- 
scending waters  back  in  the  form  of  steam,  and 
while  these  masses  of  steam  and  clouds  were 
creeping  over  the  sky,  a  great  astronomical  night 
of  wild  thunder-storms  shut  down  upon  the  newly 
formed  earth.  "An  overwhelming  pall  of  clouds," 
says  a  popular  lecturer,  "  covered  the  earth  at  this 
period,  which  at  length  fell  in  raindrops,  and 
these,  exploding  on  their  encounter  in  mid-air 
with  the  vapors  rising  from  the  earth,  produced 
a  universal  tempest  with  thunder  and  lightning,  a 
tempest  that  lasted  through  a  whole  geological 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  137 

period."  The  planet  Jupiter,  and  probably  the 
other  large  exterior  planets,  are  now  passing 
through  a  similar  stormy  period. 

How  long  this  pall  hung  over  the  earth  we  have 
no  reliable  means  of  knowing.  We  may  reason- 
ably conjecture,  however,  that  its  duration  ex- 
tended through  years  numbered  by  millions. 

Like  every  other  night,  this  one  was  greeted 
by  a  dawnlight,  at  least  by  a  season  of  changed 
geological  conditions,  formations,  and  develop- 
ments. Geological  science  positively  reports  that 
the  primitive  crust  of  the  earth  was  broken  up, 
thereby  disclosing  those  fires  which  had  been  con- 
cealed through  the  previous  night.  The  earth, 
from  one  pole  to  the  other  and  round  its  entire 
surface,  was  torn  by  earthquakes  and  was  lighted 
up  in  every  direction  by  volcanic  fires.  Huge 
masses  of  the  primitive  crust  rocks  were  piled  up 
in  folds  and  then  repeatedly  were  sunk  into  seas 
of  liquid  fire.  At  that  time  there  must  have  been 
a  play  of  physical  forces  so  terrific  and  titanic  that 
the  most  fertile  imagination  hardly  can  picture  it. 

During  the  closing  hours  of  that  preparatory 
period  the  broken  crust  of  the  earth  formed  another 
covering  for  the  suppressed  fires.  Mountain- 
ranges,  not  lofty,  but  extensive,  made  their  ap- 
pearance and  a  new  series  of  rocks  was  formed. 
Of  the  length  of  this  period  all  judgments  are 
conjectural.     Professor  Le  Conte,  basing  his  esti- 


138  EVOLUTIOU  OR  CREATION  > 

mate  on  the  time  needed  to  produce  the  forty  or 
fifty  thousand  feet  in  thickness  of  the  rocks  then 
formed,  concludes  that  its  duration  was  greater 
than  the  entire  subsequent  history  of  the  earth. 
If  this  is  the  case,  then,  according  to  the  estimates 
of  Sir  William  Thomson,  the  length  of  that  vol- 
canic era  was  not  less  than  one  hundred  million 
years.     Such  was  the  beginning  of  things. 

II.    CLASSIFICATION    OF   GEOLOGICAL   PERIODS 

We  must  not  take  time  to  enumerate  specifi- 
cally the  remaining  geological  periods,  though 
the  temptation  to  do  so  is  an  inviting  one.  We 
therefore  take  the  shorter  path,  pointing  out  the 
essential  agreement  among  scientific  men  as  to  the 
number  of  geological  periods. 

Professor  Marsh  gives  the  following  classifi- 
cation: Planetic,  Archaic,  Paleozoic,  Mesozoic, 
Caenozoic,  and,  sixth,  the  Psychozoic.  Professor 
Sanborn  Tenney,  in  his  treatise  on  geology,  enu- 
merates the  following  divisions  :  Azoic,  Paleozoic, 
Secondary,  Tertiary,  and  modern  or  Quaternary. 
If  we  add  the  Planetic,  of  which  astronomy  and 
not  geology  treats,  there  are  found  the  same  di- 
visions as  are  given  by  Professor  Marsh.  In 
Professor  Le  Conte's  classification  we  have  the 
Eozoic,  age  of  vertebrates,  age  of  fishes,  age 
of  acrogens,  age   of   reptiles,  and,  sixth,  age   of 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  139 

mammals.  Professor  Dana  gives  the  same  divi- 
sions, with  a  change  of  names  in  one  or  two  in- 
stances :  Azoic,  age  of  mollusks,  age  of  fishes, 
age  of  coal,  age  of  reptiles,  and,  sixth,  age  of 
mammals.  Dr.  Phin,  in  his  work  entitled  "  The 
Chemical  History  of  the  Six  Days  of  Creation," 
gives  the  following  classification :  the  calling  into 
activity  of  the  physical  forces,  arrangement  of  the 
heavenly  bodies,  division  of  the  land  and  water 
and  creation  of  plants,  ordaining  of  the  sun  and 
moon  as  governors  of  day  and  night,  creation  of 
fishes,  reptiles,  and  birds,  and,  sixth,  creation  of 
large  mammals  and  man.  The  divisions  as  enu- 
merated by  Dr.  A.  R.  Wallace  are :  age  of  fishes, 
age  of  amphibia,  age  of  reptiles,  age  of  birds,  and, 
fifth,  age  of  mammalia.  Adding  the  Azoic,  or  the 
age  of  no  life,  we  have  essentially  the  same  classi- 
fication as  that  of  the  authorities  just  quoted. 

Now,  while  there  is  no  agreement  among 
scholars  as  to  the  duration  of  specific  eons,  still 
there  is  no  intelligent  dissent  from  the  opinion 
that  geological  time,  not  to  mention  astronomical, 
extends  through  millions  of  years,  and  that  during 
those  eras  there  have  been,  as  we  have  seen,  re- 
peated and  sudden  introductions  of  new  species 
of  plants  and  animals  in  large  numbers  and  over 
vast  areas  of  the  earth's  surface ;  nor  is  there  any 
dissent  from  the  statements  that  these  creations 
have  been  alternately  followed  by  the  extinction 


140  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

of  these  same  plants  and  animals ;  that  there  have 
been  six  very  well-defined  geological  eras,  includ- 
ing the  preparatory  or  Planetic,  and  that  it  was 
during  the  last  era,  and  late  in  it,  that  man  and 
woman  appeared  for  the  first  time  upon  the  earth. 

III.    BIBLE    ACCOUNT    AND    MOSAIC  DAYS 

Whatever  view  is  taken  of  the  Bible  story  of 
creation,  it  generally  is  conceded  that  it  is  self- 
consistent,  unique  in  many  respects,  and  in  all 
respects  is  striking  and  beautiful. 

But,  more  than  this,  there  is  found  in  it  such 
remarkable  agreement  with  scientific  facts  that 
several  noted  writers  who  are  well  qualified  to 
speak  on  the  subject  have  called  attention  to 
this  harmony  with  no  inconsiderable  emphasis. 
Says  Dr.  Dawson,  who  has  made  a  protracted 
and  critical  study  of  these  problems  :  "  The  order 
of  creation  as  stated  in  Genesis  is  faultless  in  the 
light  of  modern  science,  and  many  of  its  details 
present  the  most  remarkable  agreement  with  the 
results  of  sciences  born  only  in  our  own  day." 

Professor  Dana  speaks  thus  of  this  same  Mo- 
saic account :  "  The  first  thought  that  strikes  the 
scientific  reader  is  the  evidence  of  divinity,  not 
merely  in  the  first  verse  of  the  record  and  the 
successive  fiats,  but  in  the  whole  order  of  creation. 
There  is  so  much  that  the  most  recent  readings 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  141 

of  science  have  for  the  first  time  explained  that 
the  idea  of  man  as  the  author  becomes  utterly 
incomprehensible.  By  proving  the  record  true, 
science  pronounces  it  divine ;  for  who  could  have 
correctly  narrated  the  secrets  of  eternity  but  God 
himself?" 

Elsewhere  Professor  Dana  has  happily  put  his 
thought  thus :  "  The  grand  old  Book  of  God  still 
stands,  and  this  old  earth  the  more  its  leaves  are 
turned  and  pondered,  the  more  will  it  sustain  and 
illustrate  the  sacred  Word." 

Hugh  Miller,  the  distinguished  Scotch  geologist, 
speaking  of  the  revelations  of  the  Bible  and  their 
anticipations  of  the  latest  discoveries  of  science, 
says :  "  The  geological  prophecies  of  the  Bible, 
though  they  might  have  been  read,  could  not  be 
understood  till  the  fullness  of  the  time  had  come. 
And  it  is  only  as  the  fullness  of  the  time  comes, 
in  the  brighter  light  of  increasing  scientific  know- 
ledge, that  these  grand  old  oracles  of  the  Bible,  so 
apparently  simple,  but  so  marvelous,  pregnant 
with  meaning,  stand  forth,  at  once  cleared  of  all 
erroneous  human  glosses  and  vindicated  as  the 
inspired  testimonies  of  Jehovah." 

With  Dawson,  Dana,  and  Miller  also  agree 
Baron  Humboldt,  Baron  Cuvier,  Dr.  Johann  H. 
Kartz,  Donald  McDonald,  Taylor  Lewis,  Profes- 
sors Benjamin  Silliman,  Benjamin  Pierce,  Arnold 
Henry  Guyot,   and  many  other  scientific   men, 


142  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

together  with  such  Bible  scholars  as  Professor 
Philip  Schaff,  Dr.  John  P.  Lange,  Dr.  John  Jame- 
son, and  President  James  McCosh.  This  array  of 
authorities  who  find  a  harmony  between  the  Bible 
and  scientific  accounts  of  creation  ought  to  inspire 
confidence,  as  it  would  seem,  in  the  heart  of  any 
timid  friend  of  Bible  revelation. 

But  unfortunately  there  is  this  drawback,  that 
the  most  of  the  authorities  just  cited  insist  that 
the  Mosaic  account  and  that  of  science  not  only 
are  harmonious,  but  identical,  and  Moses  therefore 
is  represented  as  describing  geological  periods  and 
not  ordinary  days.  Hence  the  perplexity  con- 
fronting the  Bible  student  may  be  put  briefly  in 
this  form :  if  the  word  translated  "  day  "  in  the 
first  and  second  chapters  of  Genesis  is  taken  to 
mean  a  period  extending  through  many  millions 
of  years,  then,  while  an  agreement  between  the 
scientific  and  Bible  accounts  is  secured,  it  is  done, 
as  will  appear  presently,  at  considerable  expense ; 
for  with  this  interpretation  the  Bible  account  must 
be  regarded  not  as  literal,  but  as  a  pictorial  or 
symbolical  representation  of  creation.  This  view, 
however,  as  we  have  said,  is  a  perilous  one  and 
is  in  conflict  with  the  theory  of  interpretation  we 
have  promised  to  defend. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  word  translated  "  day  " 
means  simply  an  ordinary  day,  then  apparently 
the  Bible  and  science  are  in  an  irreconcilable  con- 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  143 

flict,  for  the  successive  creations'  enumerated  by 
science,  as  we  have  seen,  extend  through  at  least 
five  hundred  million  if  not  a  thousand  million 
years  instead  of  through  a  period  embraced  in  a 
single  ordinary  week  of  days.  Here,  therefore, 
is  a  dilemma,  and  we  can  go  no  further  without 
making  a  choice  of  one  or  the  other  of  these  ap- 
parent difficulties. 

In  harmony  with  the  position  already  taken, 
whatever  the  perils  or  consequences  may  be,  we 
reject  at  the  outset  the  poetic  or  symbolic,  and 
adopt  the  literal  interpretation  in  all  its  particulars. 

And  we  may  add  that,  except  to  escape  em- 
barrassment or  to  support  some  favorite  theory, 
no  one  reading  the  Bible  account  would  think  of 
any  periods  other  than  those  of  literal  sun-divided 
days  bounded  by  mornings  and  evenings ;  and 
therefore  an  interpretation  that  makes  the  day 
one  of  indefinite  length  is  open  to  severe  criticism. 

Professor  Huxley  puts  the  case  of  the  long- 
period  theory  with  delicate  sarcasm  when  he  says, 
"  A  person  who  is  not  a  Hebrew  scholar  can  only 
stand  aside  and  admire  the  marvelous  flexibility 
of  a  language  which  admits  of  such  diverse  inter- 
pretations as  to  allow  the  six  periods  of  Genesis 
to  be  as  long  or  short  as  convenience  requires." 

While  the  Hebrew  word  yom,  which  in  its  most 
primitive  sense  means  heat  or  temperature,  some- 
times is  used  to  denote  an  indefinite  period,  as  in 


144  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

chapter  two,  verse  four,  of  Genesis,  yet  never  is 
it  so  used  when  limited  by  the  words  a-rav  ("  even- 
ing ")  and  ba-kar  ("  morning  "). 

And  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this,  which 
seems  to  be  the  most  natural  interpretation,  is 
supported  by  some  of  the  ablest  and  most  criti- 
cal Hebrew  scholars  of  modern  as  well  as  ancient 
date.  Says  Dr.  James  S.  Baumgarten,  "The 
word  '  day,'  the  Hebrew  yom,  when  applied  to 
intervals  of  time  is  primarily  day,  and  not  period  ; 
and  here  [in  Genesis]  this  word  is  used  for  the 
first  time." 

Says  Dr.  Samuel  H.  Turner,  in  his  "  Commen- 
tary on  Genesis,"  "  It  is  evident  that  all  subse- 
quent sacred  writers  who  take  notice  of  the  crea- 
tion as  a  work  of  six  days  do  invariably  assume 
a  literal  sense  of  the  word  '  day.' ' 

Professor  Ernst  Friedrich  Karl  Rosenmuller 
contends  also  that  "  the  Mosaic  account  cannot 
possibly  be  made  to  mean  other  than  days  of 
twenty-four  hours'  length." 

The  learned  and  eminent  Hebraist,  Kalisch, 
says,  "  It  is  philologically  impossible  to  under- 
stand this  word  '  day  '  in  any  other  sense  than  as 
a  period  of  twenty-four  hours." 

Says  Dr.  J.  G.  Murphy,  professor  of  Hebrew 
in  Assemblys  College,  Belfast,  Ireland,  who  is 
one  of  the  best  of  commentators  on  the  Penta- 
teuch, "  The  days  of  this  creation  described  by 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  145 

Moses  are  natural  days  of  twenty-four  hours 
each;  and  we  should  not  depart  from  the  ordi- 
nary meaning  of  the  word  without  a  sufficient 
warrant,  either  in  the  text  of  Scripture  or  in  the 
law  of  nature.  But  we  have  not  yet  found  any 
such  warrant.  Only  necessity  can  force  us  to 
such  an  expedient.  But  the  Scriptures,  by  intro- 
ducing '  morning  and  evening,'  warrant  us  in  re- 
taining the  common  meaning  of  the  word." 

Says  Professor  Hedge,  in  his  "  Primeval  World," 
"  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  text  means 
literal  days  of  twenty-four  hours." 

Calwer,  Hagenbach,  Keil,  and  Davidson  main- 
tain the  same  interpretation.  Now,  in  view  of  the 
opinions  of  these  eminent  and  scholarly  authori- 
ties, all  must  feel  that  the  theory  which  regards  the 
days  spoken  of  in  the  Bible  account  as  periods  of 
indefinite  length  is  a  makeshift,  and  is  beset  with 
the  gravest  exegetical  difficulties,  and  that  we 
cannot  adopt  it  without  doing  violence  to  some 
of  the  most  imperative  rules  of  interpretation  and 
without  rejecting  some  of  the  best  established 
laws  governing  a  working  hypothesis. 

IV.    LAW    OF    TYPES 

In  explanation  of  the  foregoing  difficulties  the 
hypothesis  we  submit  is  this  :  the  periods  of  geol- 
ogy and  the  days  of  Moses  are  not  identical,  but 


146  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

the  creations  of  the  one  are  typical  or  prophetic 
of  the  creations  of  the  other. 

The  two  questions  of  importance  that  this  hy- 
pothesis suggests  are  these:  First,  do  type  and 
antitype  have  a  prominent  place  in  the  affairs  of 
the  universe?  Second,  is  the  creative  work  said 
by  Moses  to  have  been  done  in  six  ordinary  days 
possible  and  reasonable? 

In  answer  to  the  first  question  there  need  be 
no  hesitation  in  saying  that  type  and  antitype, 
prophecy  and  fulfilment,  are  of  the  most  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  process  of  world-building,  and 
play  a  very  prominent  part  in  all  theories  of  evo- 
lution. 

In  the  field  of  pure  physics  we  discover,  for 
instance,  that  the  fins  of  fishes,  and  the  wings 
and  the  feet  of  birds,  and  the  fore  and  hind  feet 
of  brutes,  created  before  man,  are  now  recognized 
as  typical  and  prophetic  of  the  arms  and  feet  of 
man. 

A  few  years  ago  such  scientists  as  Darwin, 
Tyndall,  Huxley,  and  Haeckel  made  a  great  stir 
over  the  fact  that  before  reaching  the  human  form 
man  in  the  embryonic  state  passes  through  the 
different  stages  of  worm,  fish,  reptile,  and  quad- 
ruped. These  distinguished  scientists  claimed 
that  this  fact  is  unanswerable  evidence  that  the 
human  race  has  been  evolved  from  these  lower 
orders — the  worm,  fish,  reptile,  and  quadruped. 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  147 

But,  instead  of  jumping  to  such  a  conclusion, 
had  these  scientists  told  us  that  this  parallelism 
existing  between  the  embryonic  forms  of  higher 
and  the  adult  forms  of  lower  organisms,  which 
is  claimed  to  be  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of 
modern  discoveries,  is  simply  an  illustration  of  a 
well-nigh  universal  law,  that  of  type  and  antitype, 
of  prophecy  and  fulfilment,  they  would  have  been 
wise  and  have  had  abundant  support  for  their  state- 
ment. As  it  has  turned  out,  however,  the  conclu- 
sions reached  are  entirely  destitute  of  foundation. 

Professor  Cope,  in  some  of  his  recent  announce- 
ments, has  declared  that  man  has  in  his  blood  the 
traits  of  the  apes,  the  lemurs,  the  pseudo-lemurs, 
the  lowest  types  of  hoofed  animals,  the  opossums, 
the  flesh-eating  reptiles,  the  primitive  salaman- 
ders, and,  lastly,  of  fishes  too  remote  to  be  clas- 
sified. 

Our  reply  is  that  the  professor  has  not  a  single 
fact  on  which  to  base  these  claims  except  the  ex- 
istence of  this  law  of  type  and  antitype. 

Likewise  we  have  been  told  that  in  the  jelly- 
fish, which  is  "  a  mass  of  pulp  lazily  swimming 
through  the  water,"  are  lying  dormant  the  defi- 
nite structure  of  the  horse  and  all  the  pronounced 
functions  of  the  lion,  and  that  in  time  the  tentacles 
of  that  mass  of  pulp  will  develop  into  the  pectoral 
fin  of  the  fish,  then  into  the  fore  limb  of  the  mam- 
mal, and  then  into  the  arm  of  a  man. 


148  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Now,  while  these  lower  forms  of  life  obviously 
are  suggestive  and  prophetic  or,  better,  are  types 
or  patterns  according  to  which  higher  and  more 
elaborate  and  more  perfect  organisms  are  created, 
yet  there  is  not  a  ghost  of  evidence  that  from 
them  there  ever  has  been  or  ever  can  be  any- 
thing approaching  evolution. 

Again,  when,  with  equal  confidence,  natural- 
ists assure  us  that  the  earliest  eye  is  a  colored 
speck  in  the  worm,  that  it  passes  through  vari- 
ous changes,  becoming  a  dot  of  nerve-matter  in 
the  muscle,  and  then  the  rods  of  the  insect,  and, 
lastly,  the  full-formed  eye  of  a  horse  or  a  man, 
they  merely  are  speculating.  In  their  zeal  for 
evolution  they  have  been  falsely  presuming  all 
the  while  that  these  recurring  types  are  different 
stages  of  development,  when  in  reality  they  are  no 
such  thing  at  all ;  these  naturalists  have  been  mis- 
taking a  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment  for  evolution. 

In  this  connection  one  other  of  the  groundless 
assumptions  of  naturalism  deserves  notice  and 
criticism.  It  is  the  claim  that  the  bones  in  the 
hinder  part  of  the  body  of  the  boa-constrictor 
and  certain  superfluous  bones  in  the  body  of  the 
whale  are  remains  of  lost  hind  legs  and  that  their 
presence  is  proof  of  the  law  of  evolution.  But  as 
a  matter  of  fact  the  evidence  is  a  hundredfold 
stronger,  indeed,  is  overwhelming,  that  the  boa- 
constrictor  always  has  been  a  boa-constrictor  and 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  149 

nothing  else,  and  that  the  whale  always  has  been 
a  whale  and  nothing  except  a  whale. 

And,  further,  if  what  these  men  say  is  true,  the 
facts  they  present  would  be  indicative  not  of  de- 
velopment or  elaboration,  but  of  degeneracy,  for 
an  animal  having  legs  is  higher  in  the  scale  of 
creation  than  one  not  having  legs ;  and  the  whale 
not  having  teeth  which  is  of  later  date  than  the 
one  having  teeth  is  a  degenerate  progeny  of  its 
ancestors ;  and  the  whale,  if  a  descendant  of  the 
polar  bear,  as  Mr.  Darwin  once  suggested,  is  an 
additional  illustration  of  degeneration. 

Now  if  naturalists  had  said  that  in  the  lower 
order  of  animals  and  in  the  unused  bones  of  some 
of  the  higher  animals  we  see  a  prophecy  of  the 
later  creations,  including  man,  the  highest  of  all, 
they  would  have  been  correct  and  would  have 
added  something  of  interest  and  value  to  the 
world's  stock  of  knowledge.  But  as  matters  now 
stand  these  earlier  inferences,  or  rather  assump- 
tions, for  that  is  what  they  are,  in  which  Mr. 
Darwin,  Professors  Huxley  and  Haeckel,  and 
many  others  indulge,  shortly  must  be  consigned 
to  a  place  among  the  amusing  and  abandoned 
curiosities  of  speculative  skeptical  science.  A 
century  hence  people  possibly  will  be  left  to  won- 
der whether  these  men  really  were  in  earnest,  or 
were  sporting  with  the  credulity  of  their  innocent 
and  easily  duped  admirers. 


150  EVOLUTION  OK   CREATION? 

Perhaps  we  ought  not  to  pass  this  point  with- 
out adding  that,  while  one  distinct  type,  through 
evolution  or  degeneration,  never  passes  into  an- 
other, yet  the  individual  type  is  under  a  very 
efficient  and  far-reaching  law  of  evolution  or  im- 
provement. The  physical  universe,  for  instance, 
began  in  fire  mist  and  developed  into  suns,  planets, 
satellites,  and  habitable  worlds ;  but  all  the  while 
it  was  the  evolution  of  a  physical  universe,  and 
even  on  naturalistic  grounds  could  not  have  been 
anything  else.  The  same  can  be  said  of  the  earth, 
and  of  each  plant  and  animal  on  its  surface,  and 
of  every  human  being.  In  a  word,  the  individual 
of  any  class  or  order  may  be  very  greatly,  even 
marvelously,  developed,  or  may  pass  into  a  state 
of  decay ;  yet  the  genus  in  each  order  is  immu- 
table. And  on  this  view,  we  may  suggest,  are 
based  some  hopeful,  almost  inspiring  views  of 
human  destiny  that  naturalism  carelessly  has  over- 
looked. That  is,  while  in  matter  itself  there  is 
no  evidence  of  "  a  promise  and  potency  "  of  all 
things  that  are  taking  place  on  earth  or  of  the 
evolution  of  one  thing  into  another,  yet  in  the 
human  constitution,  and  on  the  ground  of  the 
evolution  of  the  individual,  there  are  the  promise 
and  potency  of  far  greater  and  grander  things  for 
each  human  being  than  are  realized  in  this  pres- 
ent life.  Immortality  is  the  complement  of  mor- 
tality:  "This  mortal  must  put  on  immortality." 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  151 

In  other  words,  the  life  with  which  man  starts  in 
this  world  is  the  type  and  prophecy  of  a  future 
and  inconceivably  magnificent  life,  and  in  some 
respects  the  present  life  is  inexplicable  on  any 
other  supposition.  The  more  one  ponders  the 
things  of  the  universe,  the  more  one  must  be  con- 
vinced that  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation 
there  has  been  a  plan,  outcroppings  of  which 
everywhere  are  visible,  and  toward  the  realiza- 
tion of  that  plan  the  Eternal  patiently  and  con- 
stantly has  been  working.  And  when  worlds 
shall  end  and  the  physical  universe  shall  evolve 
into  the  new  conditions  awaiting  it,  when  the 
fittest,  who  are  sure  to  be  the  survivors,  are  in- 
troduced into  the  ideal  existence  that  the  Scrip- 
tures reveal  and  that  naturalism  in  its  better  mo- 
ments dreams  of,  and  when  those  royal  survivors 
are  placed  on  the  thrones  of  the  universe,  in  no 
fanciful,  but  in  the  profoundest  sense  imaginable, 
then  the  plan  that  is  hinted  at  in  the  lowest  forms 
of  life  will  reach  its  consummation,  and  the  Eter- 
nal will  be  satisfied,  and  the  survivors  who  wake 
in  that  perfected  state  also  shall  be  satisfied. 

Returning  from  this  brief  digression,  we  note, 
what  most  of  our  readers  well  know,  that  the 
most  rational,  or  rather  the  only  rational,  view  as 
to  the  typical  or  prophetic  correspondence  be- 
tween the  earlier  and  later,  the  lower  and  higher 
forms  of  life,  has  been  advocated  by  not  a  few 


152  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

scientists  and  philosophers  whose  reputation  for 
sound  and  careful  thinking  cannot  be  questioned. 

Says  Professor  Mivart,  in  the  conclusion  of  his 
article  entitled  "  Likenesses,  or  Philosophical  Anat- 
omy," "  The  teaching  of  what  we  believe  to  be  a 
true  philosophy  is  that  the  types  shadowed  forth 
by  material  existences  are  copies  of  divine  origi- 
nals, and  correspond  to  prototypal  ideas  in  God." 

President  McCosh,  in  a  treatise  entitled  "  The 
Development  Hypothesis,"  illustrates  the  same 
view  thus :  "  We  see  branchings  in  the  old  club- 
mosses  and  the  seaweeds  in  anticipation  of  the 
more  perfect  ramifications  in  the  tree.  We  notice 
flowers  radiating  like  the  shellfish,  which  come 
at  a  later  date.  Insects  have  wings,  prophetical 
of  the  better  wings  of  the  birds.  In  the  reptilian 
age  we  have  monsters  standing  upright  and  fore- 
telling the  erect  form  of  man." 

Professor  Owen  expresses  the  same  thought 
thus :  "  Man  has  had  all  his  parts  and  organs 
sketched  out  in  anticipation  in  the  inferior  ani- 
mals." 

Professor  Agassiz,  speaking  of  animal  types, 
says:  "  They  appear  now  as  a  prophecy  in  those 
earlier  times  of  an  order  of  things  not  possible 
with  the  earlier  combinations  then  prevailing  in 
the  animal  kingdom,  but  exhibiting  in  a  later 
period  in  a  striking  manner  the  antecedent  con- 
sideration of  every  stage  in  the  gradation  of  ani- 


BEGINNINGS,  PERIODS,  MOSAIC  DAYS,  TYPES  153 

mals."  He  then  carries  this  general  thought  a 
step  further,  showing  that  types  and  prophecies 
are  found  in  minerals.  "  The  crystal  embedded 
in  the  rock,"  he  says,  "  by  the  little  fibers  and 
threads  that  go  out  from  it  anticipates  the  com- 
ing vegetable."  "And  vegetation,"  says  Bishop 
Erastus  Haven,  "  when  it  reaches  perfection  pre- 
typifies  the  coming  animal,  and  the  animal  in  its 
instincts  pretypifies  the  coming  reason  of  man." 

This  method  in  nature  is  very  strikingly  illus- 
trated by  discoveries  recently  made  through  the 
science  of  vegetable  pathology.  Certain  plants 
are  found  to  digest  food  much  as  the  human  stom- 
ach does,  and  can  digest  some  things  that  man 
cannot.  We  are  not,  therefore,  to  say  that  man 
is  "a  superbly  evolved  vegetable,"  but  simply  that 
digestion  in  the  plant  is  a  type  of  digestion  in 
man.     Indeed,  the  law  seems  universal  that 

"  The  swan  on  still  Mary's  lake 
Floats  double,  swan  and  shadow." 

In  calling  attention  to  this  law  of  type  and 
prophecy  we  have  had  in  mind,  as  the  reader  will 
perceive,  a  twofold  object:  first,  to  point  out  an 
error  in  the  reasoning  and  conclusions  of  the  evo- 
lutionist; second,  to  suggest  that  in  the  creation 
of  the  universe  we  ought  to  find  conformity  to 
this  law  of  types ;  and,  if  wre  mistake  not,  it  will 
require  only  a  few  moments  in  another  chapter 


154  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

to  show  that  this  conformity  beyond  any  reason- 
able question  exists.  And,  from  what  has  been 
shown,  it  also  must  be  apparent  that  if  the  six 
vast  geological  epochs  which  science  describes  are 
types  and  prophecies  of  the  six  ordinary  days  of 
which  Moses  writes,  a  thousand  years  being  as 
one  day  and  one  day  as  a  thousand  years,  then 
we  shall  not  have  to  resort  to  forced  methods  of 
interpretation,  but  easily  can  solve  a  score  of  sci- 
entific and  exegetical  difficulties  that  hitherto  have 
been  paraded  as  fatal  to  the  credibility  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures. 


CHAPTER   VIII 
The  Ice  Age  and  the  Mosaic  Week 

i.  the  ice  age  of  geology 

It  is  conceded  by  all  who  have  given  attention 
to  these  subjects  that  one  of  the  most  noteworthy 
periods  of  the  earth's  history  is  the  ice  age. 
Some  of  the  reasons  for  this  are,  that  it  occurred 
immediately  preceding  the  coming  of  man,  was 
remarkably  destructive,  and  was  attended  by  very 
great  geological  changes. 

As  to  the  date  of  the  ice  age  there  has  been 
a  striking  diversity  of  opinion.  But  since,  in  an- 
other connection,  we  are  to  speak  more  at  length 
of  this  conflict  of  authorities  on  this  and  a  kindred 
subject,  we  now  call  attention  merely  to  what  is 
especially  worthy  of  note,  namely,  the  growing 
tendency  among  all  scientific  men  to  bring  the  ice 
age  comparatively  near  to  modern  times. 

The  recessions  of  the  falls  of  Niagara,  the  de- 
posits of  the  Mississippi,  the  origin  of  the  Great 
Lakes  of  America,  and  other  phenomena  found 
*55 


156  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

in  the  lake  region  and  elsewhere  throughout 
North  America,  together  with  the  fossil  deposits 
of  Europe  and  the  delta  of  the  Nile,  have  been 
made  to  contribute  to  our  knowledge  of  these 
matters ;  and  they  all  point  in  the  same  direction, 
and  according  to  the  most  recent  estimates  give 
not  over  ten  thousand  years  since  the  close  of  the 
ice  period,  though  in  some  parts  of  our  country, 
especially  among  the  Sierras,  the  great  mass  of 
ice  did  not  disappear  until  comparatively  a  very 
recent  date,  even  while  Europe  was  settling  with 
its  earlier  historic  inhabitants. 

As  to  the  condition  of  the  earth  during  the 
reign  of  ice  there  is  among  geologists  very  gen- 
eral agreement.  During  the  glacial  period  in 
North  America  there  is  no  question  that  the 
region  between  Maine  and  the  St.  Lawrence 
River  was  at  least  sixty  five  hundred  feet  under 
ice;  that  in  the  interior  of  the  New  England 
States  the  ice  lay  from  two  to  ten  thousand 
feet  in  thickness.  Northern  New  England,  New 
York,  the  region  of  the  Great  Lakes,  and  the 
entire  archaean  region  of  Canada  were  covered 
with  ice  having  a  thickness  of  from  five  to  ten  or 
twelve  thousand  feet.  After  the  ice  began  to 
thaw,  owing  to  immense  ice  gorges,  water  filled 
with  ice,  where  Pittsburg  now  stands,  was  three 
hundred  feet  in  depth.  Over  the  site  on  which 
is  built  the  city  of  Cincinnati  there  were  six  hun- 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND    THE  MOSAIC    WEEK    157 

dred  feet  of  glacial  ice-water.  In  Red  River 
County  there  is  a  territory  called  Lake  Agassiz, 
very  fertile  and  under  cultivation,  where  during 
the  glacial  era  there  was  an  ice-floe  covering  more 
than  one  hundred  and  ten  thousand  square  miles. 

The  ice-sheet  was  a  thousand  feet  deep  over 
Salt  Lake,  and  completely  mantled  Nevada. 
The  Yosemite  Valley  and  the  Lake  Tahoe  re- 
gion likewise  were  filled  with  glacial  ice.  Ice — 
a  reign  of  ice — in  North  America  extended  from 
the  north  pole,  with  the  exception,  strange  to  say, 
of  parts  of  Alaska,  southward  nearly  to  where  is 
now  the  city  of  Washington,  west  to  the  city  of 
St.  Louis,  and  on  in  an  irregular  line  to  southern 
California. 

During  the  winter  of  1894-95  the  cold  in  the 
United  States  was  a  little  intenser  than  usual, 
though  lasting  only  a  few  days ;  but  the  results 
in  some  respects  were  disastrous.  In  large  num- 
bers the  tamer  birds  were  found  dead  in  several 
of  the  Southern  States.  In  Florida  shade-trees 
were  killed,  including  the  orange-palm  and  mag- 
nolia, and  orange  groves  were  frozen  to  the  roots. 
Now,  if  we  can  imagine  that  degree  of  cold  to  be 
intensified  by  many  degrees  and  continued  year 
after  year,  summer  and  winter,  for  a  hundred 
thousand  or  more  years,  without  a  ray  of  sunlight 
for  a  part  of  the  time,  and  with  the  line  of  per- 
petual frost  running,  in  all  probability,  along  the 


158  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

shores  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  we  can  have  some 
idea  of  the  North  American  continent  during  the 
reign  of  ice. 

The  picture  painted  by  Professor  Winchell  is 
vivid  and  doubtless  accurate : 

"  The  accumulated  cold  of  years  binds  all  the 
northern  latitudes  in  indissoluble  bonds  of  ice. 
The  northern  blast  bears  frost  along  the  vales 
which  had  never  felt  its  power.  The  limpid 
streams  grow  torpid,  and  then  rest  in  a  long 
hibernal  sleep.  The  verdure  of  forest  and  plain, 
touched  by  the  first  breath  of  winter,  shrinks 
away. 

"  The  ponderous  tread  of  the  mastodon  turns 
from  the  withered  meadows  to  the  frozen  jungle, 
and  the  shivering  tapir  yields  himself  a  victim  to 
the  strange  rigors  of  the  climate.  Glaciers  brood 
over  all  the  land,  and  alpine  desolation  reigns 
without  a  rival  over  half  the  continent." 

In  South  America  the  conditions  were  similar; 
the  ice-sheet,  in  some  places  of  immense  thick- 
ness, extended  from  the  south  pole  as  far  north 
as  the  thirty-seventh  degree  of  south  latitude. 

Turning  attention  to  Europe,  it  is  discovered 
that  the  British  Isles,  all  northwestern  Europe,  all 
northern  and  southern  Asia,  were  under  fields  of 
ice,  which  at  the  culmination  of  the  glacial  period 
extended  as  far  south  as  the  fiftieth  degree.  As 
it  was  with  Alaska,  so  one  part  of  northern  Sibe- 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND    THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    159 

ria,  the  low  lands,  owing  perhaps  to  the  internal 
heat  of  the  earth,  appears  to  have  been  compara- 
tively free  from  ice. 

In  Norway  and  Sweden  the  indications  are  that 
the  ice-sheet  was  from  seven  to  ten  thousand  feet 
in  thickness.  The  Australian  alps  were  likewise 
filled  with  ice  and  glaciers. 

As  the  reader  very  well  knows,  these  various 
conclusions  are  reached  by  the  study  of  water- 
courses, by  marks  on  hill  and  mountain  sides 
made  by  icebergs  loaded  with  their  tonnage  of 
rocks  and  gravel,  by  terraces  of  sand,  gravel,  and 
granite  pebbles,  and  by  boulders  that  were  borne 
away  from  the  hills  in  the  north  and  brought 
down  by  glacial  streams  and  deposited  extensively 
over  the  more  temperate  latitudes. 

During  the  progress  of  the  glacial  period  and 
on  to  its  culmination  many  animals  living  in  the 
northern  latitudes  retreated  southward.  But 
others,  especially  those  that  had  no  migratory 
instincts,  remained  north,  and  during  the  early 
years  of  the  ice  age  perished  from  cold  and  hun- 
ger. Some  of  the  larger  species  have  been  found 
within  a  few  years  in  the  north  of  Europe,  where 
they  were  when  overtaken  ten  thousand  years  ago 
by  the  cold  waves  that  destroyed  them,  the  food 
still  in  the  stomach,  and  the  flesh,  having  remained 
frozen,  in  such  condition  as  readily  to  be  eaten  by 
dogs. 


160  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Other  animals  that  could  better  retreat  before 
the  advancing  line  of  frost  met,  however,  impas- 
sable barriers.  In  America  they  were  confronted 
by  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  Their  escape  westward 
after  reaching  the  gulf  was  intercepted  by  the 
Mississippi  River,  preventing  such  animals  as 
could  not  cross  the  river  from  taking  refuge  on 
the  table-lands  of  Mexico  and  in  the  tropical  cli- 
mate of  Central  America,  where  they  could  have 
survived  a  while  longer. 

In  Europe  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  Black 
Sea,  the  Caucasus  Mountains,  and  the  Caspian 
Sea  stood  in  the  way  of  retreat. 

In  Asia  migratory  animals  went  a  little  farther 
south,  but  their  journey  to  the  equatorial  regions 
was  cut  off  by  the  mountain-ranges  running  east 
and  west,  likewise  by  the  great  Asiatic  rivers 
that  flow  in  the  same  direction.  Especially  is 
this  true  of  such  mountains  as  the  Altai,  the  Par- 
opamisan,  the  Himalaya,  and  the  Banyan  Kara 
ranges,  and  of  such  rivers  as  the  Indus,  the 
Ganges,  the  Hoang,  and  the  Yang-tse-Kiang.  It 
will  be  a  matter  of  surprise  if  the  northern  shores 
of  these  seas  and  rivers  and  the  northern  slopes 
of  the  mountains  of  Asia  do  not  prove  rich  fields 
for  the  fossil  botanist  and  paleontologist. 

It  was  at  that  time,  as  geologists  now  generally 
agree,  that  much  of  the  earlier  cave  bone  rubbish 
was  accumulating.    The  picture  drawn  by  Profes- 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND   THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    161 

sor  Le  Conte  is  doubtless  true  of  what  was  then 
taking  place  :  "  Animals  of  all  sizes  and  kinds  are 
supposed  to  have  huddled  together  in  those  caves, 
forgetting  their  mutual  hostility  in  the  sense  of  a 
common  danger,  and  perished  miserably  together 
there."  Professor  Dana,  in  describing  this  era, 
says  it  "  was  one  of  the  most  destructive  and 
sweeping  catastrophic  epochs  in  the  earth's  his- 
tory." 

It  is  well  known  that  the  mammals  of  the  Ter- 
tiary era  are  all  extinct;  that  they  suffered  their 
great,  at  least  their  final,  extinction  during  the  ice 
and  drift  eras  no  one  can  doubt. 

Professor  Le  Conte  states  the  case  strongly  in 
saying  that  "the  mammalian  fauna  of  the  Quater- 
nary era  was  almost  wholly  peculiar,  differing 
both  from  the  Tertiary,  which  preceded,  and 
from  the  present,  which  followed  it." 

The  appearance  and  disappearance  of  the  so- 
called  "true  horse"  affords  an  interesting  and 
forcible  illustration.  He  first  appears  in  the 
Upper  Pliocene,  and  that  was  considerably  earlier 
than  the  reign  of  ice.  He  then  freely  and  in  great 
numbers  roamed  over  North  and  South  America ; 
but  for  some  reason  he  became  extinct,  so  much 
so  that  not  one  was  to  be  found  in  either  North 
or  South  America  when  this  continent  was  dis- 
covered by  Europeans.  Some  destructive  agency 
or  agencies,  at  a  time  between  the  Upper  Pliocene 


162  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

and  the  historic  human  period,  exterminated  the 
prehistoric  American  horse;  and  at  present  no 
valid  objection  can  be  offered  to  the  theory  that 
it  was  the  glacial  era  that  wrought  this  complete 
extinction.* 

The  story  of  smaller  animals  and  insects  is  like- 
wise full  of  interest.  Professor  Scudder  has 
shown  that  in  North  America  the  fossil  coleopter- 
ous insects  (beetles)  of  deposits  laid  down  in  the 
glacial  era  are  very  nearly  all  of  extinct  species. 
More  noticeable  still  is  the  fate  of  the  early  land- 
snail.  The  preglacial  species  are  not  the  same  as 
those  now  existing,  and  the  ice  age  marks  their 
disappearance. 

The  rarity,  if  not  entire  absence,  of  bird  fossils 
belonging  to  this  same  era  likewise  is  suggestive. 
The  bird  has  migratory  instincts,  also  the  means 
of  escape,  and  in  this  regard  has  an  advantage 
over  wingless  mammals.  The  bird  by  keeping  in 
the  air  and  measurably  in  advance  of  the  cold 
waves  ought  to  have  gained  the  milder  latitudes. 
If  bird  fossils  laid  down  during  the  ice  and  drift 
eras  are  to  be  found  in  considerable  quantities 
anywhere,  it  probably  will  be  among  the  tropics. 

Taking  all  these  facts  into  account,  it  must  be 

*  It  is  not  impossible  or  improbable  that  remains  of  the  true 
horse  may  be  found  among  the  fossils  of  the  second  elephantine 
age,  the  rough-stone  age  of  geology ;  if  so,  his  second  extinction 
can  be  accounted  for.     (See  pp.  183,  etc.) 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND   THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    163 

apparent  that  if,  amid  the  perils  of  those  glacial 
times,  a  few  species  of  animals,  as  some  natural- 
ists have  claimed,  survived,  they  must  have  had 
a  difficult  struggle  for  existence.  Cautious  ge- 
ologists confess,  however,  that  the  number  of 
these  supposed  survivors  by  no  means  is  estab- 
lished, and  from  the  nature  of  the  case  must  have 
been  extremely  limited. 

Passing  to  the  vegetable  kingdom,  we  discover 
that  it  suffered  scarcely  less  from  the  freeze-out 
than  did  the  animal.  The  plant  cannot  migrate 
on  short  notice;  in  this  respect  the  animal  has 
the  advantage ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  seed 
of  the  plant  and  its  root  have  a  vitality  that  give 
it  an  advantage  over  the  animal.  Still  the  disas- 
trous effects  of  the  reign  of  ice  on  plant  life  are 
unmistakable. 

Professor  John  S.  Newbury,  who  has  been 
honored  with  a  membership  in  nearly  all  the 
learned  societies  of  our  country  and  also  in  many 
foreign  ones,  clearly  showed  in  his  address  before 
the  Torrey  Botanical  Club  of  New  York  that  the 
number  of  species  before  the  arctic  irruption  was 
much  greater  than  now,  and  that  this  destruction 
of  plant  life  occurred  at  the  time  of  the  ice  age. 
As  the  ice  moved  south  plants  were  driven  from 
temperate  atmospheres  to  warmer  ones,  but  in 
many  places  met  water  and  land  barriers  they 
could  not  pass,  and  consequently  became  extinct. 


164  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

A  few  on  the  American  continent  could  go  far- 
ther south  than  the  same  kinds  in  Europe ;  hence 
there  was  a  possible  chance  for  their  preservation 
and  return  when  the  ice  receded.  Fossil  remains 
show  that  the  same  species  existed  at  one  and 
the  same  time  in  Japan  and  China,  in  Europe  and 
America.  None  of  them,  however,  are  now  native 
in  Europe  and  only  a  very  few  in  America. 

And  it  is  noteworthy,  as  Professor  Newbury 
shows,  that  no  new  species  of  flora  "  have  ap- 
peared on  the  surface  of  the  earth  since  the  ap- 
pearance of  those  that  followed  the  great  ice  era," 
and  in  regard  to  the  introduction  of  new  classes 
of  plants  in  geological  history  the  professor  finds 
no  evidence  of  the  development  of  one  from  an- 
other. He  can  discover  no  link  that  unites  the 
naked  seed  class,  the  gymnosperms,  with  the  class 
inclosed  in  seed-vessels,  the  angiosperms — a  very 
troublesome  fact  in  the  pathway  of  naturalism. 

The  cause  or  causes  that  brought  on  this  age 
of  frost  and  ice  hardly  require  full  discussion  in 
this  treatise,  but  in  passing  and  as  a  matter  of  in- 
terest we  may  call  attention  to  two  of  the  many 
assignable  causes. 

The  first  is  that  the  light  and  heat  of  our  sun, 
which  is  now  classed  among  the  slightly  variable 
stars,  are  supposed  to  have  diminished  ten  thou- 
sand years  ago,  resulting  in  the  glacial  period. 
This  being  the  case,  there  may  be  at  some  future 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND   THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    165 

time  a  recurrence  of  diminished  heat  and  another 
age  of  ice.  Indeed,  such  a  recurrence  on  scientific 
grounds  is  quite  to  be  expected. 

Or  a  change  of  the  earth's  axis  might  bring  its 
poles,  and  therefore  an  ice-sheet,  where  now  are 
the  tropics.  And  just  such  a  catastrophe  is  also 
threatened.  That  is,  the  increasing  accumula- 
tions of  snow  and  ice  at  the  north  and  south 
poles,  with  the  thickening  and  hardening  of  the 
earth's  crust,  thereby  preventing  further  flattening 
at  the  poles,  in  time  must  result  in  a  slow  or  rapid 
change  of  the  earth's  axis.  It  is  estimated  by  Dr. 
Croll  that  the  ice-cap  at  the  south  pole,  which 
is  constantly  increasing,  already  covers  twenty- 
eight  hundred  miles  in  diameter  and  is  at  least 
twelve  miles  in  thickness.  At  the  north  pole 
the  accumulations  of  ice  have  been  less  rapid, 
owing  probably  to  the  thinness  there  of  the  earth's 
crust;  still  there  is  no  question  that  the  whole 
north  arctic  region,  as  well  as  the  southern,  is 
undergoing  gradual  refrigeration.  It  is  therefore 
only  a  question  of  time  when  the  ice  weights  will 
be  heavy  enough  to  tip  the  scales,  bringing  the 
poles  of  the  earth  somewhere  on  the  present 
equator,  perhaps  in  the  Indian  and  Pacific  oceans. 
Then,  by  sudden  changes  of  temperature,  by  ter- 
rific tornadoes  and  raging  floods,  the  end  of  nearly 
all  animal  and  vegetable  life  on  our  planet  would 
follow. 


166  EVOLUTION  OR  CREAtlOU> 

Before  closing  this  section  we  mention  two  or 
three  other  facts  relating  to  the  ice  era  that  have 
an  important  bearing  on  the  general  subject  under 
discussion. 

Just  prior  to  the  ice  age  there  appear  to  have 
been  what  are  called  pluvial  or  very  rainy  periods. 
There  also  appear  to  have  been  two,  or  possibly 
more  than  two,  glacial  periods  in  quite  close  prox- 
imity— "  one  glacial  period  with  various  minor 
episodes,"  as  some  of  our  geologists  state  the  case. 
The  beginning  of  the  end  of  the  reign  of  ice  wit- 
nessed the  submergence  of  continents,  the  rising 
of  the  temperature,  the  drifting  of  icebergs  that 
discharged  their  cargoes  of  gravel  and  boulders 
over  lands  widely  separated,  the  giving  way  of  ice 
gorges,  and  the  overflowing  of  river-banks  in  every 
direction. 

A  recent  scientific  writer  thus  describes  the 
closing  scenes  of  the  ice  age  as  witnessed  in  the 
central  portions  of  our  own  country :  "  The  ice- 
dam  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  which  at  Cincinnati 
was  at  least  five  hundred  and  fifty  feet  high, 
caused  the  slack  water  in  the  Ohio  River  to 
stand  six  hundred  feet  deep  and  to  flow  back 
as  far  as  Grafton,  Va.,  and  Oil  City,  Pa.  We 
have  great  spring  freshets  now  in  the  Ohio 
River,  but  who  can  conceive  the  tremendous 
floods  that  poured  over  this  dam  and  down 
through  the  Ohio  valley  during  the  last  years 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND   THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    167 

of  the  ice  age,  or  when  finally  that  great  dam 
gave  way,  and  the  pent-up  waters  of  the  Ohio 
and  its  tributaries,  and  the  melting  ice  of  the  so- 
called  Lake  Ohio,  an  extinct  lake  caused  by  this 
dam  and  at  that  time  covering  twenty  thousand 
square  miles,  went  surging  and  roaring  down 
through  the  lower  Ohio  valley!  The  marks  of 
that  awful  devastation  long  remained,  some  of 
which  even  now  can  be  traced." 

The  White  Mountains  of  New  Hampshire,  ac- 
cording to  Professors  Charles  Augustus  Young 
and  C.  H.  Hitchcock  (there  are  no  better  author- 
ities on  this  subject),  were  out  of  sight  under  the 
waters  of  the  drift*  Then,  too,  conditions  simi- 
lar to  those  which  now  produce  the  dense  fogs  of 
London  and  the  well-nigh  perpetual  fogs  along 
the  northern  coasts  of  America  existed  around 
the  entire  earth,  and  during  the  pluvial  period  the 
sky  was  heavily  inswathed  with  dense  banks  of 
vapor  and  clouds.  It  was  blackness  of  darkness. 
The  description  of  Dr.  John  Phin,  in  his  "  Chemi- 
cal History  of  the  Creation,"  doubtless  is  correct: 

*  For  additional  authorities  on  the  glacial  and  drift  eras  see 
early  papers  by  Professor  Agassiz,  1840;  reports  and  treatises 
by  E.  Hitchcock,  W.  W.  Mather,  C.  Whittlesey,  James  Hall, 
T.  C.  Chamberlin,  Warren  Upham,  F.  Leverett,  R.  D.  Salsbury, 
Professor  James  Geikie,  Dr.  Daniel  G.  Brinton,  G.  K.  Gilbert, 
W.  J.  McGee,  J.  C.  Branner,  Carrill  Lewis,  G.  F.  Wright,  J.  D. 
Whitney,  Clarence  King,  I.  C.  Russell,  G.  M.  Dawson,  R.  Bell, 
R.  G.  McConnell,  J.  B.  Tyrrell,  and  R.  Chalmers. 


168  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

11  We  have  all  seen  the  sun's  face  darkened  by 
thunder-clouds  when  their  black  masses  were 
driven  by  fierce  tempests  across  his  disk.  From 
the  cheerful  light  of  day  the  change  to  intense 
gloom  was  rapid.  The  birds  sought  the  densest 
shade,  the  wild  beasts  flew  to  their  lairs,  and  men's 
faces  grew  pale  as  they  gazed  upon  nature  and 
upon  each  other.  And  yet  all  this  was  produced 
by  clouds  representing  at  most  but  a  few  inches  of 
water.  What,  then,  must  have  been  the  darkness 
of  that  night  when  the  clouds,  which  wrapped  the 
earth  as  with  a  swaddling-band,  contained  water 
sufficient  to  have  covered  the  whole  surface  of  the 
earth  to  the  depth  of  from  four  to  five  miles?" 
Such  were  the  devastations  and  deaths  of  this 
and  the  preceding  epochs.  The  world  is  not  im- 
properly represented  as  being  at  that  time  a  vast 
and  silent  burial-ground. 

II.  THE  "TOHU"  AND  "  BOHU  "  OF  THE  BIBLE 
IDENTICAL  WITH  THE  ICE  AGE  OF 
GEOLOGY 

Taking  our  beariegs  once  more,  we  note  that 
the  earth,  that  had  had  its  five  hundred  million 
or  its  thousand  million  years  of  history,  that  had 
had  its  fiery  period  and  its  period  of  high  tem- 
perature, when  the  vegetation  of  the  coal  era 
flourished  as  vegetation  never  since  has  flourished, 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND   THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    169 

that  had  had  its  reptilian  age  and  its  mammalian 
age,  was  during  the  reign  of  ice  frozen  out,  and 
during  the  great  submergencies  was  drowned  out, 
and  during  the  turbulent  drift  epoch  was  wrecked 
and  left  desolate.  And  this  wreck  took  place 
from  seven  to  ten  thousand  years  ago. 

We  now  return  for  a  moment  to  the  Mosaic 
account  of  the  six  days'  creation.  Following  an 
exact  translation,  the  reading  is  this  :  "  In  the  be- 
ginning Elohim  [the  Eternal]  created  the  heavens 
and  the  earth.  And  the  earth  had  become  [past- 
perfect  tense]  a  waste  and  a  void,  and  darkness 
was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep."  Tohu,  translated 
"without  form,"  means  "confusion"  or  "wreck," 
and  boku,  translated  "  void,"  means  "  without  in- 
habitant " ;  "wi'iste  tind  leer"  is  Luther's  forcible 
translation.  And  one  cannot  well  see  how  a  brief 
statement  setting  forth  the  condition  of  the  earth 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  drift  period  can  be  better 
framed  to  describe  the  wreck  and  desolation  that 
geologists  without  an  exception  tell  us  then  ex- 
isted than  the  words,  "  and  the  earth  had  become 
tohu  and  bohu,  desolate  and  tenantless." 

III.    CREATIONS    OF    THE    MOSAIC    WEEK 

We  preface  what  is  to  be  said  as  to  the  crea- 
tions of  the  Mosaic  week  with  three  remarks. 
First,  there  are  comparatively  only  a  few  scien- 


J 


170  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

tific  men  of  note  who  deny  the  existence  in  the 
universe  of  an  eternal,  invisible,  all-powerful,  and 
infinitely  wise  Somewhat  or  Some  One  that  stands 
back  of  all  visible  phenomena  as  the  First  and 
Adequate  Cause. 

Second,  if  there  is  such  a  Somewhat  or  Some 
One,  as  the  Bible  teaches,  and  if  he  can  interpose 
and  create  a  few  primal  life-germs,  which  is  ad- 
mitted by  Mr.  Darwin,  then  the  most  imposing 
difficulties  urged  against  supernaturalism  are  re- 
moved, for  when  the  intervention  of  the  super- 
natural Being  to  any  extent  is  admitted,  the 
career  of  pure  naturalism  ends.  Admit  the  mir- 
acle of  an  intervention,  or,  for  that  matter,  admit 
the  existence  of  a  First  Cause  or  an  eternal  Being, 
and  it  follows  that  it  is  just  as  possible  and  just 
as  easy,  by  a  word  of  command,  for  that  First 
Cause,  or  the  Eternal  spoken  of  in  Genesis,  in  six 
ordinary  days  a  few  thousand  years  ago  to  cre- 
ate all  plants  and  animals  belonging  to  the  human 
period,  together  with  man  himself,  as  to  consume 
millions  of  years  in  their  creation,  beginning  the 
work  at  a  time  the  most  remote  conceivable. 

Third,  When  all  phenomena,  theological,  phil- 
osophical, and  scientific,  are  taken  into  account, 
it  will  appear  that  the  Bible  story  of  creation  ex- 
plains more  of  the  difficulties  involved,  adequately 
and  without  exclusion,  distortion,  or  mutilation, 
than  any  other  hypothesis  that  has  been  proposed. 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND   THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    171 

Now,  if  the  geological  account  of  creation  is  not 
identical  with  the  Bible  account,  as  certainly  it 
cannot  be,  and  if  it  stands  related  to  it  as  a  type 
is  related  to  an  antitype,  or  as  a  prophecy  is  re- 
lated to  its  fulfilment,  as  manifestly  it  seems  to 
be,  then,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  verse  of 
Genesis,  which  appears  to  be  general  and  intro- 
ductory, the  Mosaic  account  really  begins  with 
the  dark  and  turbulent  ice  age  that  had  rendered 
the  earth  well-nigh  uninhabited  and  uninhabitable. 

According  to  this  view,  the  words,  "  In  the  be- 
ginning the  Eternal  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,"  constitute  an  introduction  to  the  more  de- 
tailed account  of  creation,  or  else  are  designed  to 
recount  in  brief  the  Bible  history  of  the  universe 
from  the  first  appearance  of  star  stuff  to  the  frozen 
condition,  the  submergence,  and  the  desolation  of 
the  earth  just  before  the  dawn  of  the  human  pe- 
riod. And  the  words,  "  Then  the  earth  had  be- 
come waste  and  void  [or  desolate  and  uninhab- 
itable], and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the 
deep,"  denote  the  time  of  the  reign  of  ice  and  are 
the  starting-point  of  what  are  called  the  six  days 
of  creation. 

That  desolation  of  the  ice  age  necessarily  con- 
tinued until  the  waters  were  rolled  back  or  were 
taken  up  into  the  atmosphere,  and  until  such 
other  conditions  could  be  brought  about  as  to 
render  daylight  possible.     Naturalism,  however, 


172  El/OLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

is  unable  to  give  any  satisfactory  explanation  as 
to  what  produced  those  changes.  We  may,  there- 
fore, consult  the  Bible.  This  is  its  revelation: 
"  Then  the  Spirit  eternal  was  brooding  upon  the 
face  of  the  waters.  Then  said  the  Eternal,  Light 
be :  and  light  was.  Then  the  Eternal  saw  the 
light,  that  it  was  good :  then  the  Eternal  divided 
between  the  light  and  between  the  darkness. 
Then  the  Eternal  called  the  light  Day,  and  the 
darkness  he  called  Night.  Then  was  evening, 
then  was  morning;  day  first." 

And  if  it  is  granted  that  the  Eternal  can  inter- 
pose in  the  affairs  of  the  universe,  then  even 
naturalism  cannot  doubt,  or  at  least  cannot  give 
a  valid  reason  for  doubting,  that  this  change  from 
a  blackness  denser  than  that  of  a  Newfoundland 
midnight  to  comparative  daylight  (the  sun,  moon, 
and  stars  remaining  invisible)  could  have  been 
effected  by  creative  power  in  a  day  of  ordinary 
duration  without  doing  violence  to  modern  scien- 
tific thought. 

"  Then  said  the  Eternal,  Let  an  expanse  \rakia, 
"  a  stretching  or  spreading  out  "]  be  in  the  midst 
of  the  waters,  and  let  a  dividing  be  between  the 
waters  to  the  waters.  Then  the  Eternal  formed 
the  expanse,  and  divided  between  the  water  which 
was  above  the  expanse  and  between  the  water 
which  was  beneath  the  expanse :  and  it  was  so. 
Then   the   Eternal   called   the  expanse   Heaven. 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND    THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    173 

Then  was  evening,  then  was  morning;  day 
second." 

Fifty  thousand  billion  tons  of  water,  the  esti- 
mated weight  of  the  aqueous  vapor  now  held  in 
the  air,  were  then  separated,  raised,  and  suspended 
in  the  sky.  According  to  the  account  before  us  this 
was  accomplished  in  a  day  of  twelve  hours'  dura- 
tion. Then  were  brought  to  their  close  the  drift 
period,  the  pluvial  period,  and  the  great  submer- 
gence of  geological  history.  The  description  that 
the  psalmist  gives  of  a  later  submergence,  the 
deluge  of  Noah,  with  remarkable  accuracy  applies 
to  the  scenes  of  that  second  Mosaic  day  as  well : 
"  The  waters  stood  above  the  mountains.  At 
thy  rebuke  they  fled  ;  at  the  voice  of  thy  thunder 
they  hasted  away.  They  go  up  by  the  mountains ; 
they  go  down  by  the  valleys  unto  the  place  which 
thou  hast  founded  for  them.  Thou  hast  set  a 
bound  that  they  may  not  pass  over;  that  they 
turn  not  again  to  cover  the  earth." 

And  within  those  bounds  they  have  been  held, 
except  during  the  time  when,  as  the  Bible,  tradi- 
tion, and  geology  tell  us,  the  earth  again  and  for 
the  last  time  was  swept  with  a  deluge  of  waters. 

The  third  day  finds  all  things  in  readiness  for  the 
appearance  of  vegetation.  But  how  and  whence 
could  it  come?  That  which  had  existed  prior  to 
the  ice  age  not  only  for  the  larger  part  had  been 
destroyed,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  was  quite  unlike 


174  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

the  vegetation  that  followed  and  that  now  adorns 
the  earth's  surface.  Whence,  then,  came  the 
grasses  and  the  herbs  and  the  fruit-bearing  trees 
belonging  to  the  present  or  human  period? 
Whence  the  first  oak  or  the  first  acorn?  for  the 
modern  oak  and  acorn  are  not  found  the  other 
side  of  the  drift  epoch.  Brofessor  Tyndall  and 
nearly  all  scientists  now  say  they  could  not  have 
originated  by  any  known  process  of  spontaneous 
generation.  And  the  evolution  of  existing  vege- 
tation in  the  limited  time  since  the  drift  is  out  of 
the  question. 

Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  naturalism  instead  of 
answering  the  question  places  its  finger  on  its  lips, 
we  may  allow  the  Bible  again  to  be  our  guide  and 
authority  :  "  Then  said  the  Eternal,  Gathered  be 
the  waters  from  under  the  skies  into  one  place, 
and  let  the  ground  appear :  and  it  was  so.  Then 
the  Eternal  called  the  ground  Land;  and  the 
gathered  waters  he  called  Seas :  then  the  Eternal 
saw  it  was  good.  Then  said  the  Eternal,  Grow 
the  land  grass,  herb  yielding  seed,  fruit-tree  bear- 
ing fruit  after  its  kind,  in  which  is  its  seed,  upon 
the  land :  and  it  was  so.  Then  brought  the  land 
forth  grass,  herb  yielding  seed  after  its  kind,  and 
tree  bearing  fruit,  in  which  was  its  seed,  after  its 
kind :  then  the  Eternal  saw  it  was  good.  Then 
was  evening,  then  was  morning;  day  third." 

In  passing  we  may  note  that  Professor  Asa 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND   THE  MOSAIC    WEEK    175 

Gray,  who  has  been  called  "  the  most  profoundly 
philosophical  mind  among  American  naturalists," 
says  that  this  general  classification  of  the  world's 
flora  found  in  the  Bible  is  scientifically  correct. 

But  what  we  wish  especially  to  note  is  a  fact 
that  even  naturalism  will  not  question ;  namely, 
that  if  there  is  an  eternal  Being  who  creates  things, 
he  can  build  a  blade  of  grass  or  an  oak-tree,  or  a 
whole  forest  of  oak  and  other  trees,  in  one'  day 
as  easily  as  in  two  days  or  in  a  hundred  days  or 
in  a  hundred  thousand  years,  and  that  he  can 
build  the  oak  without  an  acorn  just  as  easily  as 
with  one,  and  that,  therefore,  this  creation  of 
grass  and  tree  of  which  we  read  in  Genesis,  by 
an  infinite  and  divine  interposition,  if  possible  at 
all,  could  have  been  accomplished  in  a  day  of  or- 
dinary duration. 

We  now  have  the  fields  of  the  earth  covered 
with  grasses  and  herbs,  and  we  have  magnificent 
forests  fresh  from  the  hand  of  the  Eternal,  spring- 
ing into  existence  by  his  command  with  the  sud- 
denness of  crystallization. 

But  the  sky  still  was  overcast.  It  is  supposed 
there  had  been  no  clear  or  at  least  no  continuous 
sunlight  since  the  beginning  of  the  drift  period. 
The  earth  almost  might  have  forgotten  that  the 
sun,  moon,  and  stars  ever  had  shone  upon  it;  at 
all  events,  they  were  great  strangers.  But  now 
they  must  shine  in  their  splendor,  else  the  newly 


176  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

made  vegetation  would  begin  to  sicken  and  die 
the  day  it  was  made.  The  cloud-banks  that  ob- 
scured the  sun  must  be  lifted,  and  certain  chemi- 
cal changes  must  be  wrought  in  the  atmosphere 
in  order  that  day  and  night  easily  could  be  dis- 
tinguished from  each  other. 

In  view  of  the  profound  perplexities  confronting 
naturalism  at  this  point,  we  may  allow  the  Bible 
again  to  speak  and  solve  for  us  these  problems 
that,  without  a  supernatural  intervention,  are 
shrouded  in  mystery :  "  Then  said  the  Eternal, 
Lights  be  in  the  expanse  of  the  heavens  to  divide 
between  the  day  and  between  the  night ;  and  let 
them  be  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days, 
and  years  :  and  let  them  be  for  lights  in  the  expanse 
of  the  heavens  to  shine  upon  the  earth  :  and  it  was 
so.  Then  the  Eternal  displayed  \iiarthan,  "  to 
give,"  "  to  hold  out,"  "  to  show,"  "  to  display  "] 
the  two  great  lights ;  the  greater  light  to  rule  the 
day,  the  little  light  to  rule  the  night;  and  the 
stars.  Then  the  Eternal  displayed  them  in  the 
expanse  of  the  heavens,  to  shine  upon  the  earth, 
and  to  rule  over  the  day  and  over  the  night, 
and  to  divide  between  the  light  and  between  the 
darkness :  then  the  Eternal  saw  that  it  was  good. 
Then  was  evening,  then  was  morning;  day  fourth." 

The  evening  came,  the  sun  set  clear,  and  an  or- 
dinary night  of  twelve  hours,  spangled  with  stars, 
mantled  the  renewed  and  peaceful  earth,  and  as- 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND  'THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    177 

tronomical  time,  that  ever  since  has  continued, 
began  for  the  earth  its  new  mission  (Gen.  i.  14-18). 

During  these  four  days  of  creation  wonderful 
changes  had  taken  place ;  the  darkness  had  given 
way  to  light,  the  atmosphere  had  expanded,  the 
waters  had  receded,  vegetation  had  appeared,  the 
sun  had  shone  forth,  and  everything  was  in  readi- 
ness for  further  divine  unfoldings.  In  a  word, 
the  forest  solitudes,  the  grassy  hillsides,  the  water- 
brooks,  the  rivers,  the  lakes,  and  the  seas  were  in 
waiting  to  welcome  the  coming  of  their  ordained 
tenants. 

But  here  we  are  confronted  with  multiplied 
difficulties.  How  could  these  new  tenants,  mi- 
grants from  nowhere  or  from  anywhere,  come  to 
the  earth  ?  To  employ  a  familiar  illustration, 
there  could  have  been  no  hen  without  an  egg, 
and  there  could  have  been  no  egg  without  a  hen. 
But  before  the  human  period  there  was  no  mod- 
ern hen  or  egg;  nor  are  any  links  found  with 
which  to  connect  the  hen  with  those  first  genera- 
tions, the  fish-like  creatures,  the  sand-lances  or 
Amphioxus,  or  the  tadpole  or  something  else, 
from  which  the  hen  is  supposed  to  have  been 
evolved.  "Spontaneous  generation,"  "  bathyb- 
ius,"  "  vital  fluid,"  "  cosmic  emotion,"  "  germ- 
plasm,"  "bathmism,"  "growth-force,"  "pangen- 
esis," "proligerous  pellicles,"  "plastid  particles," 
and  "  parthenogenesis  "  all  have  lent  a  hand  in  try- 


178  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

ing  to  account  for  an  egg  or  a  hen ;  but  they  have 
made  no  progress  at  all,  and  are  out  of  date. 

Nor  is  there  evidence  that  there  has  been  suffi- 
cient time,  either  since  or  before  the  ice  age,  to 
produce  by  the  slow  processes  of  development 
through  natural  selection  or  otherwise  any  form 
of  the  flora  and  fauna  now  existing.  And  be- 
sides, whatever  the  length  of  time,  there  is  no 
scientific  evidence,  not  the  slightest,  that  animal 
life  in  any  way  could  have  had  an  origin  or  a  de- 
velopment unaided  by  supernatural  interposition. 
At  the  present  stage  of  scientific  knowledge  the 
time  factor  hardly  can  be  said  to  enter  at  all  into 
the  problem  of  the  origin  and  development  of 
things. 

But,  more  than  this,  naturalism  not  only  has 
failed  to  account  for  either  sand-lances,  tadpole, 
monkey,  missing  link,  or  man ;  it  also  has  failed 
to  produce  out  of  existing  orders  a  single  new 
and  clearly  marked  species.  In  view  of  these 
facts,  that  atheistic  naturalism  any  longer  dares 
to  show  its  face  in  respectable  company  is  one 
of  the  surprises  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

In  our  extremity  we  turn  again  to  the  Mosaic 
record  and  read  :  "  Then  said  the  Eternal,  Let  the 
waters  swarm  with  swarmers  \shoretzim,  "  rapidly 
multiplying  creatures  "],  and  let  birds  fly  above 
the  earth  upon  the  face  of  the  expanse  of  the 
skies.    Then  the  Eternal  created  the  great  fishes, 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND   THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    179 

and  every  living,  breathing  thing  that  creepeth, 
with  which  the  waters  abounded,  after  their  kind, 
and  every  bird  of  wing  after  its  kind :  then  the 
Eternal  saw  it  was  good.  Then  the  Eternal 
blessed  them,  saying,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply, 
and  fill  the  waters  in  the  seas,  and  let  the  fowl 
multiply  in  the  land.  Then  was  evening,  then 
was  morning;  day  fifth." 

Hence,  according  to  this  account,  between  sun 
and  sun  of  a  single  day,  by  the  interposition  and 
creative  might  of  the  Eternal  and  by  a  simple 
word  of  command,  the  waters  and  the  atmosphere 
of  the  earth  received  those  species  of  fish  and 
fowl  that  remain  to  the  present  time. 

One  more  creative  day  completes  the  Mosaic 
week.  We  read :  "  Then  said  the  Eternal,  Let 
the  land  bring  forth  the  living  breather  after  its 
kind,  cattle,  and  creeper,  and  beast  of  the  land 
after  its  kind :  and  it  was  so.  Then  the  Eternal 
made  the  beast  of  the  land  after  its  kind,  and  the 
cattle  after  their  kind,  and  every  creeper  of  the 
soil  after  its  kind :  then  the  Eternal  saw  it  was 
good." 

And  then,  last  of  all,  and  at  the  head  of  all, — 
after  vast  cosmical  eras  had  played  their  part; 
after  granite  had  been  formed  and  piled  up  in 
lofty  mountain-ranges;  after  the  flowing  and  re- 
turning waters  had  selected  and  borne  down  into 
the    valleys  the  vegetable    soils;    after    electric 


180  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

shocks  had  interlaced  the  earth  with  metallic 
veins;  after  ancient  forests  had  hardened  into 
coal,  and  were  stored  by  the  cubic  mile,  having 
yielded  also  their  reservoirs  of  petroleum;  after 
the  deposits  of  primeval  waters  had  become  a 
multitude  of  useful  materials;  after  reptiles  had 
cleared  the  waters  of  impurities  and  the  land  of 
its  rubbish ;  after  birds  had  devoured  the  animal 
remains  and  enriched  the  soil ;  after  the  earlier 
race  of  monster  mammals,  that  teach  the  power 
and  majesty  of  the  Creator  (Job  xli.),  had  ap- 
peared and  disappeared ;  after  the  earth  had  be- 
come, during  the  ice  and  drift  eras,  a  waste  and 
a  void ;  after  it  had  been  again  made  habitable, 
and  by  supernatural  interposition  had  been  pro- 
vided with  forests  and  a  carpeting  of  grass  and 
shrubs ;  after  the  flowers  had  been  filled  with 
fragrance,  and  the  trees  hung  with  delicious  fruit ; 
and  after  the  animals  of  the  present  period  had 
been  called  into  being, — then  "  created  the  Eter- 
nal the  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  the 
Eternal  created  he  him  ;  male  and  female  created 
he  them.  Then  was  evening,  then  was  morning ; 
day  sixth  "  (Gen.  i.  27). 

"  Thus  the  heavens  and  the  earth  were  finished, 
and  all  the  host  of  them.  And  on  the  seventh 
day  the  Eternal  ended  his  work  which  he  had 
made ;  and  he  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all 
his  work  which  he  had  made  "  (Gen.  ii.  r,  2). 


THE  ICE  AGE  AND    THE  MOSAIC   WEEK    181 

And  is  this  the  story,  some  one  asks,  that  men 
who  claim  to  be  intelligent  are  expected  to  believe 
while  standing  on  the  borders  of  the  twentieth 
century,  which  is  fuller  of  magnificent  promises 
than  all  the  centuries  that  have  preceded  ? 


CHAPTER   IX 

Diversity  of  Opinion  and  Meaning  of 
Terms 

i.    diversity  of  opinion  as  to  geological 

PERIODS 

There  has  been,  as  we  have  seen  and  as  might 
be  expected,  much  controversy  among  scientists 
as  to  the  duration  of  both  astronomical  and  geo- 
logical time  ;  nor  has  there  been  less  as  to  the  du- 
ration of  human  history. 

To  account  for  this  diversity  of  opinion  is  not 
such  a  difficult  task  as  at  first  might  appear,  for 
some  of  the  data  employed  by  different  investiga- 
tors are  very  uncertain ;  and,  aside  from  that,  as 
Lord  Bacon  long  since  remarked,  "  The  eye  of 
the  human  intellect  is  not  dry,  but  receives  a 
suffusion  from  the  will  and  the  affections,  so  that 
it  may  almost  be  said  to  engender  any  science  it 
pleases;  for  what  a  man  wishes  to  be  true,  that 
he  prefers  to  believe." 

It  was  not  far  from  thirty  years  ago  that  Lord 
182 


GEOLOGICAL  PERIODS  183 

Kelvin  (SirWilliam  Thomson)  suggested  that  there 
must  be  an  ascertainable  limit  to  the  antiquity  of 
the  earth,  and  that  from  the  data  then  available 
the  limit  could  not  be  fixed  at  less  than  twenty 
million  or  more  than  four  hundred  million  years. 
Kelvin  himself  inclined  to  the  lower  estimate,  bas- 
ing his  view  on  what  is  termed  the  physical  ar- 
rangements of  the  earth,  especially  taking  into 
account  the  cooling  of  its  surface,  the  age  of  the 
sun's  heat,  and  tidal  retardation.  But  the  majority 
of  geologists  and  biologists  opposed  this  brief 
limitation,  and  several  important  errors  in  Kelvin's 
calculations  were  pointed  out. 

Professor  Perry  was  as  successful,  perhaps,  as 
any  one  in  showing  that  the  age  of  the  earth 
must  be  enormously  greater  than  Kelvin  had 
supposed,  even  when  estimates  are  based  on  the 
very  data  his  lordship  had  employed. 

As  most  of  our  readers  may  know,  it  was  under 
the  sway  of  Sir  Charles  Lyell's  "  uniformitarian 
ideas "  that  a  large  number  of  geologists  and 
scholars  in  other  departments  of  science  felt  at 
liberty  to  regard  geological  time  as  practically 
unlimited,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  refer  the  origin 
of  vegetable  and  animal  life  back  to  a  period  not 
less  than  five  hundred  million  years,  while  a 
thousand  million  years  were  regarded  as  by  no 
means  an  unreasonable  estimate  for  the  entire 
history  of  our  planet. 


184  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

But  of  late  there  has  been  a  marked  tendency 
to  diminish  these  estimates.  For  illustration,  in 
the  first  edition  of  "The  Origin  of  Species"  Mr. 
Darwin  calculated  that  the  time  required  for  the 
erasion  of  the  Wealden  deposits  in  England  was 
306,662,400  years,  which  he  spoke  of  as  "  a  mere 
trifle  "  of  the  time  at  command  for  establishing  his 
theory  of  the  origin  of  species  through  natural 
selection.  But  in  his  second  edition  he  confessed 
that  his  original  estimate  concerning  the  length 
of  geological  time  was  rash,  while  in  later  editions 
he  quietly  omitted  all  mention  of  the  subject. 

Sir  Charles  Lyell,  in  one  of  the  editions  of  his 
"  Principles,"  advanced  the  opinion  that  the  close 
of  the  ice  age  was  reached  eight  hundred  thou- 
sand years  ago.  But  in  the  fourth  edition  of  his 
later  work,  "The  Antiquity  of  Man,"  he  changed 
his  estimates  from  eight  hundred  thousand  to 
two  hundred  thousand  years,  and  subsequently 
showed  no  disposition  to  return  to  his  earlier  cal- 
culations. 

Professor  George  H.  Darwin  puts  the  geologi- 
cal period  at  one  hundred  million  years. 

Beginning  with  the  Paleozoic  (ancient  life)  pe- 
riod, Sir  G.  W.  Dawson  allows  51,280,000  years 
for  geological  time,  and  an  equal  number  of  years 
for  the  previous  periods. 

Professors  Tate  and  Newcomb  think  that  eigh- 
teen million  years  for  the   nebula  cooling   and 


GEOLOGICAL   PERIODS  185 

twelve  or  fifteen  million  for  geological  history 
are  sufficient. 

Coming  down  to  times  comparatively  recent, 
Professors  Joseph  Prestwick  and  G.  Frederick 
Wright,  who  is  one  of  the  most  reliable  authori- 
ties on  the  ice  age  in  America,  conclude  that  the 
geological  changes  wrought  by  that  age  require 
not  more  than  twenty- five  thousand  years,  though 
the  falling  of  the  temperature  may  have  had  its 
beginning  seventy-five  thousand  years  earlier. 
Professor  G.  K.  Spencer  thinks  that  thirty-one 
or  two  thousand  years  have  passed  since  the  ice 
age. 

M.  Adhemar,  basing  his  calculations  on  the 
precession  of  the  equinoxes,  is  confident  that  only 
a  trifle  more  than  eleven  thousand  years  have 
passed  since  the  glacial  period ;  and  Professor 
Wright,  already  quoted,  maintains  that  it  came 
to  its  close  between  seven  and  ten  thousand  years 
ago.  Dr.  W.  Upham  places  its  close  at  from  six 
to  ten  thousand  years  ago,  and  G.  K.  Gilbert  at 
seven  thousand. 

Dr.  James  Croll,  who  has  made  what  may  be 
regarded  a  well-nigh  exhaustive  study  of  this  sub- 
ject, says  that  "  the  conditions  favorable  to  glaci- 
ation  in  Canada  existed  eleven  thousand  years 
ago."  Dr.  William  Andrews,  in  his  paper  on  "The 
North  American  Lakes  as  Chronicles  of  Post- 
glacial Time,"  clearly  demonstrates  the  error  of 


186  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

carrying  the  close  of  the  ice  era  back,  as  Lyell 
did,  eight  hundred  thousand  or  even  two  hundred 
thousand  years. 

Dr.  Andrews  reduces  the  time  even  lower  than 
does  Professor  Wright,  placing  it  somewhere  be- 
tween five  thousand  and  seventy-five  hundred 
years  ago.  Without  enumerating  all  the  author- 
ities, we  remark,  in  a  word,  that  the  ablest  and 
most  careful  geologists,  calculating  the  age  of  the 
drift  from  the  beaches  of  the  North  American 
lakes,  from  the  retreat  of  the  cataract  at  Fort 
Snelling,  from  the  alluvions  of  the  Sadne,  and 
from  the  deposits  at  the  mouth  of  the  Loire,  bring 
the  drift  that  followed  the  reign  of  ice  down  to  a 
date  somewhere  between  five  and  ten  thousand 
years  ago.  Professor  Dana  in  his  latest  publica- 
tions inclines  to  these  lower  dates. 

II.  MEANING  OF  TERMS  EMPLOYED 

We  find  it  necessary  from  this  point  on  to 
employ  certain  scientific  terms,  but  will  translate 
most  of  them  into  common  speech.  The  word 
"  Azoic "  (without  life)  is  used  to  denote  the 
time  when  there  was  no  animal  life  on  our  globe. 
The  word  "Paleozoic"  (ancient  life)  is  used  to 
denote  the  time  when  the  lower  forms  of  life,  such 
as  the  earlier  species  of  squids,  clams,  oysters,  and 
nautilus,  appeared  in  large  numbers.     It  was  also 


MEANING   OF  TERMS  187 

the  age  of  fishes  and  of  a  remarkable  growth  of 
vegetation  from  which  coal  was  formed.  The 
word  "  Mesozoic  "  (middle  life)  denotes  the  time 
when  the  great  reptiles  flourished.  The  word 
"  Caenozoic  "  (recent  life)  was  the  period  in  which 
land-animals  and  man  first  appeared. 

In  trying  to  fix  the  date  of  man's  coming  on 
the  earth  we  have  no  need  of  going  beyond  the 
recent-life  age,  for  among  scientists  there  is  uni- 
versal agreement  that  man  or  anything  resem- 
bling man,  whether  monkey  or  baboon,  does  not 
antedate  this  "  recent  "  period.  And  in  passing 
we  may  remark  that  geology  has  not  yet  dis- 
covered the  remains  of  any  race  of  monkeys  or 
apes  that  appeared  on  earth  prior  to  the  coming 
of  man.  Of  the  two,  man,  not  the  monkey,  was 
first. 

Under  this  recent  period  falls  the  Tertiary 
epoch,  in  which  mammals  first  made  their  appear- 
ance. The  Tertiary  is  usually  subdivided  thus: 
first,  the  "  Eocene  "  (daybreak)  period,  meaning 
the  first  part  of  this  last  great  division  of  geologi- 
cal times ;  second,  the  "  Miocene  "  (less  new),  or 
the  midday  period  of  recent  time ;  third,  the 
"Pliocene"  (more  new)  period,  or  quite  recent. 

It  may  be  remarked  incidentally  that  between 
the  Eocene  and  the  Pliocene  periods,  owing  to  ter- 
restrial disturbances  and  changes  of  temperature, 
land-animals  appeared  and  disappeared  from  the 


188  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION  7 

face  of  the  earth  no  fewer  than  six  or  seven  times. 
It  is  also  well  known  that  scarcely  any  of  the 
species  of  animals  now  in  existence  lived  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Pliocene  period;  but  during 
the  closing  centuries  of  that  period  a  large  num- 
ber of  animals  never  before  met  in  geological 
history  appeared,  some  of  which  live  on  to  the 
present  time.  Later  in  this  period  human  re- 
mains, not  in  abundance,  however,  have  been 
found. 

Geological  history  next  takes  note  of  a  break 
in  the  Pliocene  period  in  consequence  of  some 
terrestrial  disturbance  and  floods  of  water.  Fol- 
lowing this  break,  man  once  more  became  a  ten- 
ant of  the  earth  and  began  to  subdue  it.  And  it 
may  be  of  interest  to  note  that  the  cereal  plants, 
such  as  wheat,  rice,  barley,  corn,  and  the  like, 
which  are  invaluable  to  man,  do  not  appear  in  the 
Eocene  and  the  Miocene,  but  unmistakably  and 
fortunately  do  appear  at  the  beginning  of  the  first 
human  period,  as  if  introduced  for  the  benefit  of 
mankind. 

There  are  a  few  other  terms  that  are  used  to 
denote  different  epochs  in  early  human  history, 
such  as  "  Pleistocene  "  (most  new),  which  some- 
times is  called  the  Quaternary  and  sometimes  the 
Post-tertiary  period.  This  was  followed  by  the 
"  Paleolithic  "  (ancient  stone)  period.  The  geo- 
logical formations  of  these  periods  are  for  the 


THE  HUMAN  PERIOD  189 

larger  part  superficial  gravels,  clays,  and  fossil 
deposits  in  caverns,  which  in  several  countries 
have  been  well  preserved.  "  Neolithic  "  (new 
stone  age)  denotes  that  period  of  prehistoric  time 
when  smooth  and  in  some  instances  highly  pol- 
ished stone  implements  were  in  general  use. 

III.    DIVERSITY  OF  OPINION  AS  TO  THE  HUMAN 
PERIOD 

Resuming  at  this  point  the  main  discussion, 
the  reader  anticipates,  no  doubt,  that  there  would 
likely  be  the  same  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the 
history  of  man  that  there  has  been  concerning  the 
various  geological  periods.  And,  as  also  might 
be  expected,  there  has  been  almost  a  constant 
tendency  to  bring  man's  origin  from  a  remote 
antiquity  down  to  comparatively  recent  times. 
Mr.  Thomas  Sterry  Hunt,  late  president  of  the 
British  Anthropological  Society,  announced  the 
extraordinary  opinion  that  man  has  been  on  this 
earth  nine  million  years.  M.  Lalande  declared 
(1867)  that  "man  is  eternal."  Dr.  A.  R.  Wal- 
lace is  of  the  opinion  that  five  hundred  thousand 
years  are  sufficient  for  human  history.  Professor 
C.  Fuhlrott,  a  German  of  note,  estimates  man's 
age  at  two  or  three  hundred  thousand  years.  M. 
Gabriel  de  Mostellet,  professor  of  anthropology 
in  Paris,  argues  that  man  appeared  on  the  earth 


190  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

two  hundred  and  thirty  thousand  years  ago. 
John  S.  Hittell  says  that  man  has  existed  forty 
thousand,  perhaps  two  hundred  thousand,  years. 
Chevalier  Bunsen  limits  human  history  to  twenty 
thousand  years.  "The  Aryans,"  says  M.  Pietre- 
ment,  "  had  tamed  the  horse  and  used  it  habitu- 
ally at  an  epoch  anterior  to  the  year  19,337 
before  the  Christian  era."  But  Professor  Alex- 
ander Winchell,  who  in  several  respects  occupies 
positions  quite  antagonistic  to  the  ones  advocated 
in  this  book,  does  not  attempt  to  carry  the  origin 
of  the  white  man,  from  whom  the  present  human 
race  descended,  to  a  date  earlier  than  that  given 
in  the  Bible.  The  stone-people,  that  is,  those 
who  worked  stone  instead  of  iron  or  bronze,  he 
does  not  think  have  an  origin  earlier  than  twenty- 
five  hundred  or  three  thousand  years  before 
Christ. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Holmes,  of  the  United  States  Geolog- 
ical Survey,  makes  a  very  conclusive  showing  that 
the  remains  which  once  were  supposed  to  carry 
the  early  American  man  back  to  a  remote  anti- 
quity really  do  no  such  thing,  but  place  him  al- 
most within  hailing  distance. 

In  an  effort  to  fix  upon  a  somewhat  definite 
date  for  man's  appearance  on  the  earth  the  first 
thing  to  be  done  is  to  ascertain  the  geological 
epoch  to  which  he  belongs.  But  authorities  are 
so  much  at  variance  with  one  another  that  this 


THE  HUMAN  ^PERIOD  191 

task  is  a  difficult  one,  except  in  this,  that  all  agree 
that  man  belongs  to  a  recent  geological  period. 
Not  so  very  long  since  the  majority  of  evolution- 
ists confidently  assumed  that  man  belongs  to  the 
Miocene  of  Europe,  or  at  least  to  the  earlier  Pli- 
ocene, and  that  those  periods  extend  back  almost 
countless  ages. 

But  at  the  present  time  these  estimates  are 
received  with  great  allowance.  Professor  Capel- 
lini  thought  that  he  had  found  in  Italy  remains 
of  Pliocene  man.  Professor  Whitney  unhesitat- 
ingly announced  that  in  America  he  had  found 
similar  remains.  But  so  eminent  an  authority  as 
Professor  Boyd  Dawkins  pronounces  the  evidence 
in  both  instances  entirely  unsatisfactory  and  claims 
that  indisputable  proof  of  human  remains  is  not 
met  with  earlier  than  the  Pleistocene  (most  new) 
era.  Dr.  Gandry,  Professor  Le  Conte,  Professor 
Henry  W.  Haynes,  M.  Favre,  Dr.  John  Evans, 
late  president  of  the  Geological  Society  of  Lon- 
don, and  Professor  Dana,  who  are  among  the 
ablest  authorities  on  this  subject,  concur  in  the 
opinion  that  the  existence  of  man  in  the  Tertiary 
period  earlier  than  the  Pleistocene  is  unsupported 
by  any  reliable  scientific  evidence. 

Professor  H.  W.  Haynes,  after  showing  that 
human  remains  buried  in  "  dug  graves  "  easily 
are  mistaken  for  those  found  in  natural  deposits, 
which  mistake  more  than  once  has  been  made, 


192  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

says,  "  The  evidence  for  the  antiquity  of  man  on 
this  hypothesis  [the  evolution  theory]  is  purely 
speculative,  no  human  remains  having  as  yet  been 
actually  found  in  either  the  Miocene  or  Pliocene 
strata." 

Says  Professor  Le  Conte,  "  The  Miocene  man 
is  not  now  acknowledged  by  a  single  careful  ge- 
ologist." And  we  doubt  if  any  geologist  who 
has  regard  for  his  reputation  will  venture  the 
statement  that  there  is  what  can  be  regarded  as 
satisfactory  scientific  evidence  of  man's  existence 
before  or  even  during  the  true  glacial  era.  Nor 
is  there  evidence,  as  we  already  have  seen,  that 
the  close  of  the  ice  age  dates  back  to  a  remote 
period.  Professor  Winchell,  though  quite  conser- 
vative, and  in  his  later  writings  cherishing  an  ex- 
pectation that  in  some  of  the  caverns  of  Abyssinia 
and  Australia  or  in  the  bottom  of  the  Indian  Ocean 
relics  sometime  may  be  found  that  will  give  an 
earlier  geological  date  to  man's  origin  than  any- 
thing yet  discovered,  frankly  confesses  that  there 
is  at  present  no  evidence  at  all  that  carries  the 
origin  of  man  beyond  the  glacial  era.  In  his 
"  Sketches  of  Creation,"  speaking  of  the  antiquity 
of  man,  Professor  Winchell  says : 

"  Man  has  no  place  till  after  the  reign  of  ice. 
It  has  been  imagined  that  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  ice  dates  back  perhaps  a  hundred  thousand 
years.    There  is  no  evidence  of  this.    The  fact  is 


THE  HUMAN  PERIOD  193 

that  we  ourselves  came  upon  the  earth  in  time  to 
witness  the  retreat  of  the  glaciers.  They  still 
linger  in  the  valleys  of  the  Alps  and  along  the 
northern  shores  of  Europe  and  Asia,  while  the 
disappearance  of  animals  once  contemporaries  of 
man  is  still  continuing.  Not  only  did  contempo- 
raries of  man  become  extinct  during  the  age  of 
stone,  but  some  survived  to  the  twelfth,  fourteenth, 
and  sixteenth  centuries.  The  mammoth  of  North 
America,  the  dodo  of  Mauritius,  disappeared  in 
the  seventeenth  century ;  the  great  auk  of  the 
arctic  regions  has  not  been  seen  for  half  a  cen- 
tury ;  the  Labrador  duck  has  but  recently  disap- 
peared; the  beaver,  elk,  panther,  buffalo,  and 
other  quadrupeds  of  North  America  are  approach- 
ing extinction  by  perceptible  steps.  The  fact  is, 
we  are  not  so  far  out  of  the  dust  and  chaos  and 
barbarism  of  antiquity  as  we  had  supposed.  The 
very  beginnings  of  our  race  are  still  almost  in 
sight.  Geological  events  which,  from  the  force 
of  habit  in  considering  geological  events,  we  had 
imagined  to  be  located  far  back  in  the  history  of 
things,  are  found  to  have  transpired  at  our  very 
doors." 

And  Dr.  Dawson,  who  has  spent  much  time  in 
the  patient  study  of  these  problems,  not  only 
concurs  in  the  view  taken  by  Professor  Winchell, 
but  expresses  more  specifically  the  conviction  that 
there  is  no  evidence  worth  considering  that  man 


194  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

has  inhabited  this  earth  longer  than  seven  thou- 
sand years. 

The  so-called  Paleolithic  (rough-stone)  age  is 
one  of  great  importance  in  settling  approximately 
the  arrival  of  the  human  family  upon  the  earth, 
for  prior  to  that  time  all  evidence  of  this  class  is 
limited  in  quantity  and  exceedingly  questionable 
in  its  character ;  but  after  that  time  the  evidence 
is  abundant  and  unmistakable. 

Formerly  it  was  supposed  by  quite  an  array  of 
authorities  that  between  the  rough-stone  age  and 
the  polished-stone  age  there  is  a  gap  of  one  hun- 
dred thousand  years  or  more.  Such  a  gap,  of 
course,  would  be  a  prop  and  help  for  naturalism ; 
but,  unfortunately  for  that  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, reputable  authority  claiming  any  extended 
length  of  time  between  those  two  stone  periods  is 
no  longer  to  be  found.  That  there  is  a  gap  be- 
tween those  two  ages  is  established  beyond  rea- 
sonable doubt,  but  not  a  gap  of  any  extended 
duration.  A  deluge  of  limited  time,  like  that  of 
Noah,  with  a  few  hundred  years  for  repeopling 
the  earth,  not  only  would  fill  the  gap,  but  would 
answer  other  conditions  and  explain  certain  phe- 
nomena that  hitherto  have  been  exceedingly 
troublesome. 

In  fixing  the  date  of  each  of  these  stone  periods 
we  are  fortunate  in  having  the  opinions  of  several 
scientists  who  have  made  this  subject  a  very  care- 


THE  HUMAN  PERIOD  195 

ful  study  and  recently  have  published  the  results 
of  their  investigations. 

M.  M.  Ferry,  to  the  surprise,  perhaps,  of  some 
of  our  friends  who  believe  in  a  very  remote  an- 
tiquity for  man,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  rough- 
stone  age  in  Europe  should  not  be  placed  earlier 
than  somewhere  between  seven  and  ten  thousand 
years  ago.  M.  Morlot  thinks  that  the  polished- 
stone  age  should  not  be  carried  back  earlier 
than  sometime  between  four  and  six  thousand 
years  ago ;  Ferry  locates  it  from  four  to  five, 
and  M.  Arcelin  from  three  to  six  thousand  years 
ago.  The  Danish  historian  and  antiquary,  Dr. 
Worsaae,  fixes  its  termination  in  Denmark  at 
twenty-five  hundred  years  ago.  And  Chevalier 
de  Rossi,  speaking  of  the  lateness  of  the  stone 
age  in  Italy,  says,  "  The  whole  evidence  proves 
to  a  demonstration  that  the  new  stone  age  was 
very  near  that  of  true  history." 

And  what  makes  the  case  for  naturalism  all  the 
worse  is  that  the  stone-age  men  by  some  of  the 
highest  authorities  are  identified  with  the  Eskimo 
race,  whose  manner  of  life  bears  a  striking  resem- 
blance to  that  of  the  men  of  the  stone  age,  and 
whose  implements  of  stone  and  bone  very  closely 
resemble  those  that  were  in  use  among  those 
earliest  prehistoric  peoples  of  Europe.  But  philo- 
logical science  connects  the  Eskimo  with  the 
great  Turanian  family,  to  which  belong  the  Lapp, 


196  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

Bush,  Hungarian,  and  Turk.  It  appears  highly 
probable,  therefore,  that  at  least  one  grouping  of 
the  stone  men  and  the  Eskimo  are  the  same  race 
and  come  almost  within  the  limits  of  modern  or 
recent  historic  times. 

But  in  this  connection  we  ought  to  say  that  the 
erroneous  estimates  of  those  who  claim  a  great 
antiquity  for  the  human  race  have  not  always 
grown  out  of  the  mental  predisposition  of  which 
Lord  Bacon  speaks,  but  out  of  honest  miscalcula- 
tions and  mistaken  observations.  The  data  of  the 
more  recent  geological  periods  are  so  variable 
that  confusion  almost  inevitably  has  resulted. 
Mr.  Israel  C.  Russell  and  Mr.  Grove  Karl  Gilbert, 
two  of  the  most  thoroughly  scientific  members  of 
the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  in  a  recent 
report  refer  the  Eocene  of  the  Colorado  basin  to 
the  last  century  and  the  Pliocene  of  Utah  to  the 
last  ten  years.  Hence  when  geologists  and  biol- 
ogists calculate  that  deposits  in  the  Eocene  and 
the  Pliocene  belong  to  a  dim  antiquity  they  would 
better  designate  to  what  Eocene  and  Pliocene 
they  refer.* 

And  again  preglacial  remains  of  certain  animals 
have  been  mistaken  more  than  once  for  human 
remains,  and  human  remains  often  have  been 
supposed  to  be   prehistoric    that    were    not    so. 

*  See  also  contributions  to  "  Geological  Laboratory"  by  Pro- 
fessor William  Bullock  Clarke  (1894-95). 


THE  HUMAN  PERIOD  197 

Artificially  or  by  natural  agencies  the  remains  of 
different  ages  have  been  mixed  and  found  in 
the  same  deposits.  Therefore  it  follows  that 
much  of  the  evidence  upon  which  opinions  as  to 
the  antiquity  of  man  have  been  based  is  scarcely 
more  reliable  than  would  be  that  of  a  museum 
consisting  of  the  fossils  of  prehistoric  animals 
and  the  skeletons  of  recent  animals,  with  the  an- 
tiquities and  implements  of  ancient  and  modern 
date,  which  suddenly  had  been  overwhelmed  by 
a  flood  and  covered  with  mud  or  gravel.  In  such 
a  discovery  there  would  be  found  in  the  same 
deposit  relics  that  belong  to  ages  that  differ  from 
one  another  by  millions  of  years. 

In  other  instances  the  calculations  that  have 
been  made  are  no  more  reliable  than  would  be 
an  effort  to  ascertain  the  age  of  a  frog  found  at 
the  bottom  of  a  filled- up  well  by  calculating  the 
time  it  must  have  taken  to  form  the  succession  of 
geological  strata  between  the  frog  and  the  grass 
turf  at  the  mouth  of  the  well.  Or,  as  Dr.  South- 
all  puts  the  case,  "  The  method  of  some  geolo- 
gists is  the  same  as  if  we  should  proceed  to  calcu- 
late the  time  it  would  require  to  form  a  mountain 
if  we  should  find  a  gold  sovereign  buried  at  the 
depth  of  three  hundred  feet  in  one  of  the  moun- 
tains of  Scotland." 


CHAPTER   X 

Man's  First   Appearance   on  Earth 

i.  geological  research 

Biologists  who  are  advocates  of  naturalistic 
evolution  are  greatly  annoyed,  and  well  they  may 
be,  by  the  more  recent  geological  calculations. 
Over  and  over  again  they  have  expressed  intense 
surprise  that  geologists  fail  to  find  human  remains 
earlier  than  the  ice  age.  Biologists  have  tried  to 
spur  geologists  on  to  greater  activity  in  their  re- 
searches. But  thus  far  there  is  neither  help  nor 
comfort  nor  any  escape  except  under  the  plea 
that  earlier  evidences  of  man  may  yet  be  un- 
earthed in  some  unexplored  region  of  Africa, 
Abyssinia,  Australia,  or  somewhere  else. 

What  is  still  more  exasperating  to  naturalism 
is  the  fact  that  all  geological  evidences  thus  far 
discovered  not  only  fail  to  carry  man  back  to  a 
remote  antiquity,  but  bring  him  down  to  a  date 
so  recent  that  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  by  any 
198 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE  ON  EARTH     199 

namable  natural  processes  is  no  longer  entitled 
to  a  moment's  consideration. 

Though  failing  in  the  foregoing  investigations, 
naturalism  nevertheless  has  a  right  to  be  heard 
when  extending  its  inquiries  outside  the  realms  of 
geology  proper  and  when  entering  that  "  sort  of 
shadow-land  "  where  geological  research,  archae- 
ological investigation,  and  tradition  commingle. 

We  therefore  call  attention  next  to  certain 
fields  that  belong  to  both  geological  and  archaeo- 
logical science,  taking  note  first  of  certain  changes 
that  have  occurred  and  that  now  are  occurring  on 
the  earth's  surface. 

The  uniformitarian  theory  of  geologists  that  all 
changes  come  about  slowly  and  in  a  steady  or  a 
uniform  manner,  once  very  popular,  no  longer 
can  be  maintained.  A  geologist,  archaeologist, 
or  biologist  who  to-day  should  make  his  calcu- 
lations in  harmony  with  that  theory  would  be 
an  object  of  wonder.  This  statement,  however, 
should  not  be  made  without  presenting  reasons 
in  its  support.  We  therefore  call  attention  to  a 
few  of  the  many  facts  which  antagonize  the  geo- 
logical theory  of  the  uniformity  of  nature's  pro- 
cesses. 

It  is  only  a  few  years  since  the  human  race 
witnessed  the  following  terrestrial  changes : 

The  submergence  of  southern  Europe ;  the  de- 
tachment of  the  British  Islands  and  Scandinavia 


200  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

from  the  continent;  the  wanderings  of  the  great 
rivers  of  eastern  Asia ;  the  submergence  of  thou- 
sands of  square  miles  of  the  coast  of  China,  so  that 
the  seats  of  ancient  capitals  are  now  rocky  islets 
far  at  sea;  the  emergence  of  the  ancient  country 
of  Lectonia;  the  drainage  of  the  vast  lake  which 
once  overspread  the  prairies  of  Illinois ;  the  alter- 
nations of  forests,  and  many  other  events  which 
once  were  associated  with  high  antiquity. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  Sir  William  J.  Hooker,  the 
English  botanist,  and  Professor  Asa  Gray  of  our 
own  country  that  the  Falkland  Islands  and  others 
in  the  vicinity  recently  formed  a  part  of  the  con- 
tinent of  South  America,  and  that  during  this 
connection  they  acquired  their  continental  fauna 
and  flora.  The  Straits  of  Bering  probably  were 
cut  through  since  the  early  migrations  of  man 
and  his  contemporaries,  the  mammoth  and  rein- 
deer. 

In  1 8 19  the  British  part  of  Sindree,  in  India, 
to  the  extent  of  two  thousand  square  miles  of 
territory,  in  the  space  of  a  few  hours  was  perma- 
nently submerged.  Later,  another  portion  of  Sin- 
dree was  elevated,  converting  Sindree  Lake  into 
a  salt-marsh,  and  forming  the  elevation  of  Ullah 
Bund. 

In  the  Santosin  group  of  the  ^Egean  Sea  new 
islands  suddenly  have  appeared,  the  latest  within 
comparatively  a  few  years. 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE   ON  EARTH    201 

Between  1795  and  1812  a  lake  near  Ural,  Si- 
beria, sank  two  hundred  and  ninety-one  feet. 

In  the  years  1826  and  1827  a  succession  of 
earthquakes  so  changed  the  level  of  the  land 
along  a  coast  in  New  Zealand  that  the  sealers  no 
longer  could  recognize  the  locality  ;  and  a  hull  of 
a  vessel,  supposed  to  be  the  Active,  lost  some 
thirty  years  previously,  was  found  two  hundred 
yards  inland,  with  a  tree  growing  through  its  bot- 
tom. During  another  earthquake  in  the  same 
group,  in  1855,  a  tract  of  land  equal  to  four 
thousand  square  miles  is  believed  to  have  been 
raised  from  one  to  nine  feet. 

In  1772  the  volcano  Papandayang,  in  the  island 
of  Java,  had  a  great  eruption,  by  which  its  sum- 
mit sunk,  or  lost  in  some  way  four  thousand  feet 
of  its  height. 

The  famous  earthquake  in  Lisbon  is  well  known, 
by  which  prodigious  physical  effects  were  suddenly 
produced.  In  six  minutes  sixty  thousand  persons 
were  destroyed,  the  quay  of  the  city  sunk  into  an 
almost  fathomless  abyss,  and  the  shock  was  felt 
from  North  America  to  Sweden. 

The  beach  on  the  Firth  of  Forth,  in  Scotland, 
has  risen  not  less  than  twenty-six  feet  since  the 
time  the  Romans  ruled  the  country. 

In  Scandinavia  the  land  is  now  rising  at  the 
rate  of  three  feet  in  a  century. 

In   Peru,   in    1746,    an   earthquake   destroyed 


202  Evolution  or  creation? 

Lima,  and  sunk  a  part  of  the  coast  of  Callas  so 
as  to  convert  it  into  a  bay. 

In  1812  a  series  of  earthquakes  occurred  in  the 
region  around  New  Madrid,  on  the  Mississippi. 
So  great  a  change  of  level  was  effected  that  at 
one  place  the  river  for  a  while  reversed  its  course. 
Lakes  twenty  miles  long  were  formed  in  an  hour, 
and  a  region  seventy-five  miles  long  and  thirty 
miles  wide  is  now  known  as  the  Sunk  Country. 

It  must  be  perfectly  apparent,  therefore,  to  any 
except  those  who  have  a  favorite  theory  to  main- 
tain that  conclusions  based  on  the  uniform  pro- 
cesses of  nature  are  unsafe  and  unsound,  and  that 
the  placement  of  human  remains,  caused  by  these 
sudden  convulsions  on  the  earth's  surface,  sug- 
gests the  utter  unreliability  of  much  of  the  evi- 
dence that  has  been  introduced  in  support  of  the 
great  antiquity  of  the  human  race. 

Mud  deposits  constitute  another  very  unsatis- 
factory source  of  evidence  for  those  who  are  at- 
tempting to  carry  the  antiquity  of  man  back  to 
distant  ages.  It  was  only  a  few  years  since  that, 
with  great  confidence,  an  opinion  was  announced 
by  several  geologists,  including  so  eminent  an 
authority  as  Professor  Lyell,  that  human  remains 
found  in  the  mud  deposits  of  the  Mississippi  be- 
yond question  carried  the  origin  of  the  human 
race  back  more  than  fifty  thousand  years.  One 
piece  of  evidence,  unearthed  while  digging  for 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE  ON  EARTH    203 

the  gas-works  in  New  Orleans,  was  considered 
very  conclusive.  It  was  the  skeleton  of  a  Red 
Indian,  discovered  at  considerable  depth  below 
the  surface.  Dr.  Bennet  Dowler  made  careful 
estimates  and  reached  the  conclusion  that  the 
skeleton  was  fifty-seven  thousand  years  old,  and 
according  to  the  uniformitarian  theory  the  con- 
clusion was  correct. 

A  little  later,  a  piece  of  wood  showing  the 
workmanship  of  a  high  order  of  tools  also  was 
found  at  Port  Jackson  deeper  down  than  Dr. 
Dowler's  Red  Indian.  That  venerable  piece  of 
wood  more  than  fifty-seven  thousand  years  old  ( ?) 
was  placed  before  the  New  Orleans  Academy  of 
Science ;  it  was  carefully  examined  and  was  pro- 
nounced to  be  no  ancient  relic  at  all,  but  the  gun- 
wale of  a  Kentucky  flatboat.  That  discovery  of 
course  settled  the  age  of  the  Red  Indian. 

There  is  nothing  surprising,  however,  in  these 
findings  when  we  learn  that  there  are  streets  in 
New  Orleans  where  the  water  less  than  fifty  years 
ago  flowed  one  hundred  feet  deep.  Says  Fon- 
taine, "  The  Mississippi  undermining  and  ingulf- 
ing its  banks  with  everything  upon  them,  logs 
tangled  in  vines  and  bedded  in  mud,  cypress 
stumps,  Indian  graves,  and  modern  works  of  art 
are  suddenly  swallowed  up  and  buried  at  all 
depths  by  its  waters,  from  ten  to  one  hundred 
feet  in  depth." 


204  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

A  very  careful  study  also  has  been  made  of 

relics  found  at  the  outlets  of  some  of  the  rivers 
of  France  in  which  human  remains  have  been 
discovered.  These  remains  were  estimated  by 
M.  Morlot  to  be  from  ninety-six  to  one  hundred 
and  forty-three  thousand  years  old ;  but  Dr.  An- 
drews subsequently  exposed  a  curious  arithmeti- 
cal blunder,  the  correction  of  which  reduces  the 
time  to  within  four  or  five  thousand  years. 

The  so-called  "  Homer's  Nile  pottery,"  exca- 
vated at  a  depth  of  sixty  feet  and  calculated  to 
be  twelve  or  thirteen  thousand  years  old,  and 
other  pottery  thought  to  be  thirty  thousand 
years  old,  appeared  to  settle  conclusively  the  re- 
mote origin  of  the  human  family.  But,  unfor- 
tunately for  the  theory,  Sir  Robert  Stevenson 
discovered  in  the  neighborhood  of  Damietta,  at 
a  greater  depth  than  Mr.  Homer  had  reached,  a 
brick  bearing  the  stamp  of  Mohammed  Ali. 

In  view  of  these  and  many  other  facts,  we 
have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  at  the  present 
time  a  scientist  who  has  any  regard  for  his  repu- 
tation would  not  think  of  estimating  lapse  of  time 
from  the  "  mud  deposits  "  at  the  outlets  of  any 
of  the  great  rivers  of  the  Old  or  New  World. 

For  a  half-century  or  more  human  relics  be- 
longing to  the  stone  age  have  been  objects  of 
intense  interest  to  the  scientific  student.  They 
consist  of  buried  human  bones  ;  stone  arrow-heads  ; 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE  ON  EARTH     205 

flint  chips  made  in  shaping  stone  implements ; 
arrow-heads  and  other  implements  made  from 
the  horns  and  bones  of  animals ;  cut  or  carved 
wood ;  figures  of  animals  cut  or  carved  in  wood, 
bone,  or  stone ;  fragments  of  charcoal  and  other 
evidence  of  fire  for  warming  and  cooking;  and 
fragments  of  pottery. 

It  was  claimed  a  few  years  since  that  these 
"  implement  gravel  beds"  of  England  and  else- 
where in  Europe  furnished  unmistakable  evidence 
of  man's  great  antiquity.  But  careful  investiga- 
tors like  Dr.  S.  R.  Pallison  and  Professor  William 
Phipps  Blake  now  assure  us  that  such  of  these 
beds  as  contain  human  remains  are  unquestion- 
ably of  recent  origin  and  were  formed  since  the 
close  of  the  ice  age.  Dr.  Traas  also  assigns  to 
a  recent  date  the  various  implements  found  in 
Schiissenried,  Switzerland. 

For  a  time  human  remains  discovered  near 
Geneva  were  thought  to  establish  a  very  remote 
origin  for  the  human  race.  But  M.  Morlot 
reached  the  conclusion  that  they  are  not  more 
than  from  five  to  seven  thousand  years  old,  and 
Dr.  Andrews  makes  it  quite  clear  that  they  are 
not  more  than  three  thousand  years  old. 

The  age  of  the  deposits  at  Trenton,  N.  J., 
which  contain  articles  of  human  workmanship, 
has  been  a  subject  of  hot  dispute,  a  few  geolo- 
gists   insisting   that  they  belong  to  the   earlier 


206  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

ice  age.  But  a  careful  study  of  this  region  by- 
gentlemen  connected  with  the  Pennsylvania  Ge- 
ological Survey  has  led  to  the  following  conclu- 
sions :  There  are  in  the  Trenton  deposits  three 
strata  of  clay  that  belong  to  the  Mesozoic  (middle 
life)  period.  Then  appears  the  Philadelphia  brick- 
clay,  probably  derived  from  the  melting  of  the  ice 
in  the  glacial  period.  No  true  glacial  deposits 
exist  south  of  the  terminal  moraine,  near  Easton, 
as  first  pointed  out  by  Professor  G.  H.  Cook. 
After  this  clay  three  gravel  deposits  were  laid 
down  :  the  first  one,  found  on  the  tops  of  the  hills, 
is  composed  largely  of  pebbles  of  Potsdam  sand- 
stone ;  the  second,  a  red  gravel,  is  referred  to  the 
Champlain  period ;  lastly,  there  is  the  Trenton 
gravel  or  sand  in  which  are  found  human  imple- 
ments. These  Trenton  beds  probably  are  of  the 
same  age  as  the  lower-level  gravels  of  the  River 
Somme,  in  France.  Hence,  geologically  speak- 
ing, they  are  extremely  modern  and  cease  to  be 
of  any  importance  in  fixing  a  great  antiquity  for 
man.  And,  as  these  implements  clearly  belong 
to  the  Paleolithic  (ancient  stone)  age,  they  may 
cause  archaeologists  to  bring  this  ruder  human 
period  quite  near  our  own  times.  Mr.  Lewis 
suggests,  therefore,  that  the  name  of  "  Eskimo 
period  "  might  be  used  to  designate  the  time  of 
the  formation  of  the  Trenton  gravels. 

A  few  years  ago,  in  Charleston,  S.  C,  human 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE   ON  EARTH    207 

bones  and  those  of  the  mastodon  were  found  in 
close  proximity,  and  were  thought  to  afford  ample 
evidence  of  man's  remote  antiquity.  But  further 
investigation  discovered  in  those  same  deposits, 
which  are  thin  and  superficial,  the  bones  of  the 
modern  ox  and  the  domestic  hog,  neither  of 
which  is  indigenous  to  this  continent  and  there- 
fore must  have  been  introduced  by  European  set- 
tlers not  earlier  than  1562. 

Speaking  of  this  class  of  evidence,  though  still 
desirous  of  keeping  up  a  high  antiquity  for  man, 
Dr.  Joseph  Prestwick  says,  "  I  do  not,  for  my 
part,  see  any  geological  reasons  why  the  extinct 
mammalia  of  America  should  not  have  lived  down 
to  comparatively  recent  times,  possibly  not  fur- 
ther back  than  eight  or  ten  thousand  years." 
And  in  another  place  he  remarks  that  "  the  evi- 
dence seemed  to  me  as  much  to  necessitate  the 
bringing  forward  of  the  great  extinct  animals  to- 
ward our  time  as  the  carrying  back  of  man  in 
geological  time/' 

Essentially  the  same  uncertainty  hangs  over 
peat  formations,  notably  those  of  Denmark,  Scot- 
land, and  Ireland,  which  a  few  years  ago  were 
examined  and  studied  with  intense  interest.  The 
reader  will  remember  that  Mr.  Hudson  Tuttle 
very  conclusively  proved  to  himself  and  his  friends 
that  human  remains  found  in  Danish  peat  were 
twenty-two  thousand   years  old.      But   unfortu- 


208  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

nately  Mr.  Tuttle's  calculations  were  completely 
upset  by  Professor  Worsaae,  who  at  the  same 
depth  found  fragments  of  woolen  cloth  of  com- 
paratively modern  manufacture. 

A  few  years  since  human  remains  found  in  the 
peat-bogs  of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  several  scientific  men,  carried  the  anti- 
quity of  those  who  then  peopled  Great  Britain 
back  many  thousand  years  beyond  historic  times. 
But,  on  further  investigation,  there  were  discov- 
ered at  the  same  level  and  in  the  same  deposits 
axes  and  knives  of  Roman  manufacture  and  coins 
bearing  the  stamp  of  Roman  emperors  as  late  as 
237  A.D. 

Peat-beds  have  proved  such  extremely  unsatis- 
factory places  in  which  to  look  for  evidence  of 
man's  great  antiquity  that  they  are  now  neglected 
by  advocates  of  that  theory. 

The  deposits  of  stalagmite  in  limestone  caverns, 
like  the  progress  of  peat-bed  formations,  are  now 
of  no  geological  or  archaeological  value. 

Likewise  evidence  of  man's  antiquity  based 
upon  stone,  iron,  and  bronze  implements  and 
utensils  discovered  in  different  geological  de- 
posits, formerly  regarded  with  favor,  now  are 
looked  upon  as  altogether  unreliable.  In  some 
instances  these  relics  have  proved  the  exact  op- 
posite of  what  was  expected.  Among  the  ruins 
of  Troy  a  stone  age  follows  a  bronze  age.      In 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE  ON  EARTH    209 

Mexico  and  Peru,  from  the  earliest  to  the  present 
times,  bronze  and  stone  have  been  used  in  com- 
mon. Bronzes  are  found  in  the  oldest  Egyptian 
pyramids,  while  in  comparatively  recent  historic 
times  the  Egyptians  made  use  of  stone  knives 
fixed  in  wooden  handles,  together  with  stone 
saws  and  stone  lance-heads.  Belonging  to  the 
earliest  periods  of  Babylonian  civilization  have 
been  found  both  stone  and  metal  implements. 
Tombs  and  ruins  on  the  great  Chaldean  plains, 
also  the  ruins  of  Nineveh,  yield  flint,  iron,  and 
bronze  implements  and  ornaments  of  identically 
the  same  periods. 

While  Europe  was  a  metal  age  North  America 
was  a  stone  age  and  remained  such  until  after  the 
days  of  Columbus.  Even  seventy-five  or  one 
hundred  years  ago  gun-flints  in  this  country  were 
used  by  the  million.  Hence,  in  settling  the  anti- 
quity of  the  human  race,  the  stone,  iron,  and 
bronze  ages  in  some  respects  are  no  more  reliable 
than  moonshine. 

The  so-called  "  flint  flakes  "  discovered  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  Europe  for  a  long  time  were  sup- 
posed to  establish  the  theory  of  a  Miocene  man ; 
but  Professor  Isaac  G.  Hayes  and  others  have 
shown  that  man  had  nothing  to  do  with  them. 
They  are  extremely  crude  and  misshapen  pieces 
of  flint ;  just  as  perfect  flakes  can  be  produced  by 
the  action  of  heat  and  other  natural  agencies  on 


210  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

fragments  of  flint  rock.  This  is  true  of  those 
found  in  the  valley  of  the  Tagus,  France,  and  of 
those  taken  from  the  auriferous  gravels  of  Cali- 
fornia, which  are  among  the  most  perfect  speci- 
mens yet  discovered. 

Mr.  Frank  Calvert  announced  in  1873  that  ne 
had  found  unmistakable  evidence  of  European 
Miocene  man,  and  by  reason  of  the  announce- 
ment the  scientific  world  rose  on  tiptoe.  But 
Dr.  George  Washburn,  of  Hamlin  College,  Con- 
stantinople, not  satisfied  with  Calvert's  conclu- 
sions, went  carefully  over  the  same  ground  and 
showed  conclusively  that  just  as  perfect  imple- 
ments can  be  made  by  dropping  pieces  of  bone 
found  in  those  localities  on  any  hard  substance, 
such  as  a  rock  or  the  stump  of  a  tree.  The  doc- 
tor actually  produced  "  implements  "  formed  in 
this  way  that  were  no  more  crude  than  the  best 
of  those  discovered  by  Mr.  Calvert. 

We  need  not  dwell  upon  the  story  of  the  lake- 
dwellings  of  Switzerland,  that  once  were  alleged 
to  be  at  least  fifteen  thousand  years  old,  for  sub- 
sequent investigations  made  it  clear  that  those 
lake-dwellers  and  the  armies  of  Caesar  were  con- 
temporaneous. 

This  retreat  after  retreat  from  one  point  of 
defense  to  another,  from  surface  changes  to  mud 
deposits,  from  implement  gravels  to  Danish  peat, 
from  stone,  iron,  bronze,  and  bone  implements  to 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE   ON  EARTH     211 

the  lake-dwellings  in  Switzerland,  ought  to  be 
instructive,  and  henceforth  naturalism  less  fre- 
quently should  be  betrayed  into  premature  and 
absolutely  false  conclusions. 

II.    ARCHAEOLOGICAL    RESEARCH 

Having  considered  to  some  extent  this  source 
of  information  in  a  previous  chapter,  also  having 
occasion  in  a  subsequent  one  to  say  something 
more  bearing  on  it,  we  at  this  point  merely  note 
that,  with  the  possible  exception  of  discoveries 
recently  made  by  the  French  government  in 
Egypt,  all  researches  are  bringing  the  supposed 
great  antiquity  of  that  country  down  very  much 
nearer  recent  times  than  formerly  was  supposed, 
while  explorations  in  the  valleys  of  the  Euphrates 
and  Tigris  are  carrying  the  antiquity  of  Asia  far 
nearer  to  the  dates  assigned  for  the  earliest  his- 
tory of  Egypt  than  would  have  been  allowed  so 
late  as  ten  years  ago.  The  most  eminent  scholars 
and  explorers  to-day  are  finding  between  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  Egyptians,  the  Babylonians,  the 
Arabians,  the  Abyssinians,  the  Persians,  the 
Phenicians,  the  Chinese,  and  the  Indians  no  vast 
and  hazy  difference.  Scarcely  an  archaeologist 
of  any  reputation  is  known  who  will  venture  to 
say  that  there  is  reliable  evidence  of  a  "  fabulous 
antiquity  "  for  either  Egypt,  Asia,  or  Europe,  or 


212  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

that  settlements  were  made  in  any  of  those  coun- 
tries earlier  than  the  time  allowed  by  the  writ- 
ings of  the  sacred  Scriptures. 

III.    WRITTEN    HISTORY 

It  is  well  known  that  the  art  of  writing  was 
practised  many  centuries  before  historians  be- 
gan to  assign  dates  to  the  events  they  narrated. 
Hence,  so  far  as  dates  are  concerned,  the  written 
history  of  the  early  ages  is  involved  in  great  ob- 
scurity and  uncertainty.  Prior  to  Eratosthenes 
and  Apollodorus,  who  flourished  about  one  hun- 
dred years  after  the  death  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
time  was  reckoned,  in  many  countries,  not  by  the 
revolutions  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  but  by  gener- 
ations and  reigns  or  successions  of  dynasties. 
This  method  of  computing  time  was  employed 
not  only  by  the  earlier  Greek  historians,  but  also 
by  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
When,  therefore,  time  is  measured  by  generations 
of  men  or  by  successions  of  dynasties,  and  when 
estimates  are  made  to  depend  on  the  average 
duration  of  human  life  or  on  the  average  reign 
of  kings,  with  possible  omissions,  it  must  be  ap- 
parent that  absolute  accuracy  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. And  these  imperfect  methods  of  marking 
the  lapse  of  time  easily  explain  discrepancies  in 
the  calculations  of  those  who  have  attempted  to 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE   ON  EARTH    213 

construct  a  chronology  of  the  earlier  periods  of 
Greek  and  Roman  history,  and  also  of  scholars 
who  have  given  us  what  purports  to  be  a  Bible 
chronology. 

Three  chronological  tables,  known  as  the  He- 
brew, the  Samaritan,  and  the  Septuagint,  illustrate 
this  variation  in  dates.  They  reckon  the  time 
from  Adam  to  the  flood  as  follows : 

The  Hebrew 1656  years 

The  Samaritan I3°7     " 

The  Septuagint 2292     " 

The  time  from  the  flood  to  the  call  of  Abraham 
is  given  as  follows : 

The  Hebrew 367  years 

The  Samaritan 1017     " 

The  Septuagint 1243     " 

Aside  from  these  there  are  upward  of  two  hun- 
dred different  calculations  of  the  time  between  the 
creation  of  Adam  and  the  birth  of  Christ,  ranging 
all  the  way  from  6984  to  36 1 6  years.  When,  there- 
fore, M.  Jacques  de  Morgan  claims  that  his  recent 
discoveries  establish  a  civilization  in  Egypt  some- 
time between  twenty-three  and  thirty-eight  hun- 
dred years  before  Christ,  and  when  recent  Assyr- 
ian explorers  tell  us  that  two  peoples,  Semitic 
and  non-Semitic,  were  dwelling  in  Mesopotamia 
from  twenty-eight  to  thirty-eight  hundred  years 
before  Christ,  and  that  therefore  those  Egyptian 


214  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

and  Assyrian  dynasties  go  back  ten  or  twelve 
hundred  years  before  the  "  purported  creation  of 
Adam,"  we  reply  that,  even  if  the  civilizations  of 
those  countries  were  thus  early,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  Eden  was  not  of  a  still  earlier  date, 
for  Hebrew  chronology  is  not  yet  established. 

But  the  question  may  be  asked,  How  are  the 
foregoing  chronological  discrepancies  possible? 
The  reply  is,  they  are  inevitable,  since  the  Hebrews 
did  not  seek  to  fill  the  gaps  of  history,  having  an- 
other purpose  in  mind  than  the  giving  of  full  chron- 
ological tables,  while  modern  writers  are  attempt- 
ing to  make  the  chronological  tables  complete.* 

*  The  following  additional  calculations  of  the  period  assigned 
in  Genesis  for  the  creation  of  man  may  be  of  interest : 

From  creation  to  i8g^. 

Zunz  (Hebrew  reckoning) 5883  years 

Rabbinical 5655 

Ussher 5899 

Panodorus 73^8 

Anianus 739° 

Constantinopolitan 74°4 

Eusebius 7°94 

Scaliger 5845 

Dionysius  (from  whom  we  take  our  Christian  era)  7389 

Maximus 739° 

Syncellus  and  Theophanes 7396 

Julius  Africanus 739° 

Hales 7306 

Jackson 732 1 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  it  has  been  at  all  times  an  open  ques- 
tion among  the  most  orthodox  theologians  at  just  what  date  the 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE   ON  EARTH    215 

What  adds  to  the  unfortunate  limitation  of  our 
knowledge  as  to  primitive  ages  is  that  only  a  few 
of  the  early  historic  records  have  escaped  the 
ravages  of  time  and  barbarism.  The  annals  of 
the  early  Greeks  and  Etruscans  are  irretrievably 
lost.  The  Gauls  destroyed  the  records  of  ancient 
Rome,  and  the  Romans  extirpated  the  druids  of 
Gaul  and  Britain,  wiping  out  the  last  vestiges  of 
their  ancient  traditions.  The  Arabs  burned  the 
libraries  of  Alexandria,  a  Chinese  emperor  those 
of  China,  and  Cortez  and  Zumarraga  destroyed 
all  the  picture-writings  and  other  records  of  an- 
cient Mexico  that  they  could  lay  their  hands  on. 

We  have,  however,  the  "  brick  records "  of 
Nabonidus,  fragments  of  the  chronicles  of  Mane- 
tho,  and  inscriptions  on  ancient  Egyptian  monu- 
ments and  papyri ;  we  also  have  the  tablets,  large 
and  small,  of  Assyria  and  Babylon,  and  the  writ- 
ings of  the  early  Greek  historians,  and,  of  more 
value  than  all  these  so  far  as  an  authentic  history 
of  the  origin  and  antiquity  of  the  human  race  is 
concerned,  we  have  the  records  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures.      In   the   words  of   Professor   David 


Scriptures  assign  the  creation  of  man.  Of  the  calculations  above 
given,  nine  fix  it  at  over  seven  thousand  years  ago.  "  There  can 
be  therefore  no  ground  for  dogmatizing,"  as  Dr.  Geikie  says, 
"  when  doctors  differ  so  strikingly,  for  he  would  be  a  bold  man 
who  would  impugn  the  soundness  of  the  worthies  who  offer  even 
the  highest  computations  quoted." 


216  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

Masson,  "  Among  primitive  historians  the  writers 
of  the  Old  Testament  stand  alone." 

Turning  to  these  Bible  records,  we  discover 
that  in  the  earliest  period  of  the  human  race  the 
people  were  divided  religiously  into  two  classes, 
one  of  which  was  composed  of  those  who  were 
said  to  fear  God,  and  on  that  account  might  be 
called  "the  sons  of  God."  They  are  spoken  of 
by  ethnologists  as  Sethidae  (children  of  Seth). 
They  were  a  quiet  people  whose  occupation  chiefly 
was  the  tending  of  flocks  and  the  tilling  of  soil. 

The  other  tribe  was  made  up  of  those  who  had 
no  fear  of  God,  and  among  scholars  are  desig- 
nated by  the  word  Cainidae  (ch  ldren  of  Cain). 

These  Cainidae  also  were  divided  into  two 
classes.  The  first  built  cities,  worked  metals,  in- 
vented musical  instruments,  and  rapidly  advanced 
in  the  arts  of  a  material  civilization  (Gen.  iv.  21, 
22). 

The  second  class  consisted  of  explorers,  wander- 
ing nomads,  who  adopted  the  rudest  forms  of  the 
hunter's  life  (Gen.  iv.  20),  and  inhabited  tents  or 
caves,  as  one  or  the  other  might  be  the  more  con- 
venient. 

After  a  while  the  Sethidae  and  Cainidae  inter- 
married (Gen.  vi.  2),  and  mixed  races  arose  hav- 
ing great  physical  strength  and  fierce  passions 
(Gen.  vi.  47).     They  were  cruel,   daring,   long- 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE  ON  EARTH    217 

lived,  and  intellectual,  gaining  considerable  mas- 
tery over  nature  and  turning  it  to  practical  uses. 

There  followed  eras  of  violence  and  warfare 
(Gen.  vi.  5).  In  these  strifes  and  contentions  the 
nomadic  tribes  with  brutal  force  threw  themselves 
upon  the  settled  communities,  and  the  earth  be- 
came such  a  scene  of  both  corruption  and  blood- 
shed that,  in  the  nature  of  things,  the  extinction 
of  the  entire  human  family  was  threatened  (Gen. 
vi.  11,  13). 

The  Bible  record  goes  on  to  say  that  "  God 
saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the 
earth,  and  that  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts 
of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually  "  (Gen.  vi.  5). 
The  destruction  of  the  human  race,  excepting 
the  family  of  Noah,  was  decided  upon  (Gen.  vi. 
17;  vii.  4). 

We  read  :  "  All  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep 
were  broken  up,  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were 
opened  "  (Gen.  vii.  1 1).  The  language  employed 
seems  to  imply  a  season  of  earthquakes  aud  cloud- 
bursts that  resulted  in  a  deluge  of  water  and  in 
wide-spread  devastations.  The  record,  which 
originally  appears  to  have  been  written  by  an 
eye-witness,  subsequently  being  introduced  into 
Genesis  by  Moses,  reads  thus :  "  Fifteen  cubits 
upward  did  the  waters  prevail ;  and  the  moun- 
tains were  covered.  And  all  flesh  died  that 
moved  upon  the  earth,  both  of  fowl,  and  of  cat- 


218  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

tie,  and  of  beast,  and  of  every  creeping  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth,  and  every  man:  all  in 
whose  nostrils  was  the  breath  of  life,  of  all  that 
was  in  the  dry  land,  died.  And  every  living  sub- 
stance was  destroyed  which  was  upon  the  face  of 
the  ground,  both  man,  and  cattle,  and  the  creep- 
ing things,  and  the  fowl  of  the  heaven ;  and  they 
were  destroyed  from  the  earth :  and  Noah  only 
remained  alive,  and  they  that  were  with  him  in 
the  ark"  (Gen.  vii.  20-23;  comp.  2  Pet.  hi.  6). 

After  prevailing  over  the  earth  for  a  hundred 
and  fifty  days  the  waters  subsided  and  the  chil- 
dren of  Noah  began  the  repeopling  of  a  desolate 
world. 

At  this  point  we  note  the  interesting,  indeed 
the  remarkable,  harmony  just  discovered  and  that 
easily  can  be  traced  (see  Professor  Quatrefage  de 
Breau,"  Hommes  Sauvages  ")  between  the  Mosaic 
record  and  geological  and  archaeological  research. 
It  is  found  that  the  post-glacial  or,  as  sometimes 
designated,  the  Palaeanthropic  (ancient  man)  period 
in  Europe  furnished  three  races :  the  Truchere, 
of  which  only  a  single  example  is  at  present 
known ;  this  race  was  of  medium  stature,  of  mild 
features,  and  probably  represented  the  Sethites ; 
the  Canstadt,  a  coarse,  robust,  and  brutal  race, 
representing  the  lower  type  of  the  Cainites ;  and 
the  gigantic  cro-magnon  race,  of  great  height, 
having  prodigious  muscular  power,  large  brains, 


MAN'S  FIRST  APPEARANCE  ON  EARTH    219 

and  massive  features,  representing,  in  all  proba- 
bility, the  people  who  sprang  from  the  union  of  the 
Sethites  and  Cainites. 

According  to  the  Mosaic  record  the  Sethites 
survived  the  deluge ;  the  Cainites  and  half-breeds 
perished.  So,  in  the  transition  to  the  Neanthropic 
period  of  geology,  it  was  the  Truchere  race  that 
survived  and  became  the  basis  of  the  Iberian  and 
other  modern  races,  while  the  Canstadt  and  cro- 
magnon  types,  as  races,  disappeared. 

Now,  grouping  the  different  sources  of  informa- 
tion that  are  classed  under  written  history,  add- 
ing to  them  the  most  reliable  traditions  and  the 
results  of  archaeological  science,  we  reach  the  fol- 
lowing conclusions:  Not  far  from  four  thousand 
years  ago  the  descendants  of  Noah's  family  had 
formed  small  nationalities  and  were  scattered  over 
the  most  inviting  parts  of  widely  extended  terri- 
tories, having  inherited  from  their  ancestors  some 
degree  of  civilization. 

They  were  soon  engaged  in  laying  the  founda- 
tions of  powerful  empires.  The  Assyrian  king- 
dom was  coming  into  shape ;  the  Egyptian 
dynasties  were  taking  root ;  the  Phenicians  were 
deciding  upon  the  site  of  Sidon ;  China  was  being 
peopled ;  the  wise  men  of  India  were  beginning 
to  think  out  the  Vedas ;  and  the  Persian  monarchy 
was  soon  to  come  into  notice  and  achieve  its  bril- 
liant conquests.    And  it  should  be  borne  in  mind 


220  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

also  that  these  were  the  first  countries  and  the 
first  races  of  men  of  which  written  history,  aside 
from  the  Bible,  makes  any  mention. 

Not  long  after  there  were  settlements  in  Europe 
and  in  northeastern  Asia,  and  we  have  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  peopling  of  America  by  those 
descendants  of  Noah  who  were  venturesome 
enough  to  cross  by  the  chain  of  islands  connect- 
ing Asia  and  America,  or,  more  likely  perhaps, 
making  the  passage  from  the  extreme  eastern 
point  of  Siberia  to  the  more  westerly  point  of 
Russian  America,  speedily  followed.  Marquis 
de  Nadaillac,  who  has  studied  carefully  the  early 
history  of  America,  thinks  he  has  abundant  rea- 
son for  saying  that  "  a  primeval  dolichocephalic 
race"  appears,  in  the  first  instance,  to  have  in- 
vaded North  America  from  eastern  Asia.  Among 
the  leading  scholars  of  the  present  time  there  is 
general  concurrence  in  this  opinion. 


CHAPTER   XI 

Primitive  Men  and  Race  Unity 

i.  rough-  stone  age  of  geology  identical 
with  the  antediluvian  age  of  the 

BIBLE 

We  now  turn  in  a  direction  where  even  our 
naturalistic  friends  will  be  glad  to  follow,  calling 
attention  to  what  geology  and  archaeology  report 
concerning  a  deluge  that  occurred  some  time 
after  Europe  and  America  had  received  their 
earliest  populations ;  we  mean  those  people  called 
antediluvians,  who  preceded  the  descendants  of 
Noah,  of  whom  we  have  just  spoken. 

There  is  no  question,  at  least  no  ground  for 
question,  that  before  the  formation  of  what  in 
geology  are  called  the  "  uppermost  gravels " 
Europe  and  America  were  inhabited  by  a  race  of 
partially  civilized  people. 

While  the   deposits   found   in  the  caverns  of 


222  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

England,  France,  Switzerland,  Germany,  and 
Belgium  have  furnished  the  largest  amount  of 
evidence  on  this  subject,  still  the  countries  bor- 
dering on  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the  arctic  re- 
gions, and  some  parts  of  North  and  South  Amer- 
ica recently  have  been  found  full  of  interest.  For 
information  on  these  matters  science  is  under 
special  obligations  to  M.  Edouard  Francois  Du- 
pont,  who  has  made  a  well-nigh  exhaustive  study 
of  the  Belgium  caves,  more  particularly  those  near 
Liege ;  to  Dr.  Emile  Riviere,  who  has  examined 
thoroughly  the  remains  found  at  Cro-magnon, 
Mentone,  and  elsewhere  in  France ;  to  Mr.  Pen- 
gaily,  who  is  one  of  the  best  authorities  on  the 
deposits  in  Kent's  Hole  and  in  the  caverns  of  Brix- 
ham,  England;  to  Dr.  Garrigou,  who  has  given 
the  most  reliable  account  of  the  caverns  of  the 
Mediterranean  valley ;  to  Nordenskiold,  who  has 
carefully  studied  the  arctic  regions  ;  and  to  D'Or- 
bigny,  whose  work  has  been  confined  chiefly  to 
South  America. 

These  specialists  are  our  authority  for  the  fol- 
lowing statements  :  The  people  inhabiting  Europe 
during  the  earliest  stone  age,  judging  from  the 
extent  of  territory  they  traversed,  were  of  a  ven- 
turesome spirit,  and,  judging  from  the  symmetry 
and  size  of  their  skulls,  they  were  endowed  with 
a  degree  of  intellectual  power  that  is  not  surpassed 
in  modern  times;   and  they  possessed  no  small 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE   UNITY         223 

measure  of  artistic  skill,  if  we  may  judge  from  the 
manufacture  of  bone  and  ivory  implements  and 
ornaments  that  are  peculiar  to  that  age. 

The  so-called  "  tallies  "found  with  human  skele- 
tons, which  are  admirably  illustrated  in  the  "  Re- 
liquiae Antiquitanicae  "  of  Christy  and  Lartet,  show 
that  the  oldest  European  men  were  familiar  with 
what  may  be  called  the  rudiments  of  writing. 

Furthermore,  their  manner  of  burying  the  dead 
is  evidence  that  they  believed  in  immortality. 
But  that  belief,  according  to  the  science  of  com- 
parative religions,  carried  with  it  a  sense  of  moral 
obligation,  and  also  a  belief  in  some  kind  of  Su- 
preme Being. 

On  the  other  hand,  notwithstanding  their  intel- 
lectual endowments  and  religious  thoughts,  those 
ancient  stone  men  were  a  God-defying,  violent, 
and  brutal  race.  They  had  abundant  time  to  in- 
crease in  iniquity,  for,  judging  from  the  wearing 
down  of  their  teeth  and  from  other  unmistakable 
evidence  based  upon  the  condition  of  their  bones, 
they  matured  slowly  and  attained  extraordinary 
length  of  life.  There  were  among  them  men  of 
giant  frames,  bony,  sinewy,  and  of  commanding 
stature.  Some  of  their  skeletons  measure  from 
seven  to  ten  feet  in  height. 

With  these  ancient  people  of  the  rough-stone 
age  were  contemporaneous  the  mammoth,  the 
hairy  rhinoceros,  the  elephant,  the  hippopotamus, 


224  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

the  cave-bear,  the  giant  cave-lion,  hyenas,  and 
other  extinct  species  of  mammals. 

In  the  vast  territory  extending  from  India  and 
the  Mediterranean  Sea  to  the  arctic  seas  are  found 
caverns  in  which  are  the  bones  of  these  extinct 
mammals,  together  with  the  relics  of  man.  There 
is  no  question  that  vast  herds  of  elephants  took 
possession  of  northern  Europe,  arctic  Asia,  and 
Great  Britain,  going  as  far  south  as  southern 
Australia. 

In  North  America  the  Elephas  primigenius 
during  those  same  periods  roamed  from  Georgia, 
Florida,  Texas,  and  Mexico  on  the  south  to  Can- 
ada on  the  northeast  and  to  Oregon  and  Alaska 
on  the  northwest.  The  mastodon  covered  nearly 
the  same  territory.  And  in  these  same  latitudes, 
and  contemporaneous  with  the  elephant  and  mas- 
todon, lived  the  men  of  the  rough-stone  age. 

In  South  America  species  of  extinct  quadrupeds 
by  the  hundred  have  been  classified.  They  in- 
clude squirrels,  beavers,  llamas,  stags,  mastodons, 
hyenas,  wolves,  panthers,  ant-eaters,  armadillo- 
like creatures,  and  the  rhinoceros.  And  with 
these  extinct  mammalia  in  the  caverns  of  Brazil 
Dr.  Lund  recently  has  discovered  human  skele- 
tons. 

It  also  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  mam- 
mals of  which  we  are  now  speaking  were  not  con- 
temporaneous with  those  that  were  destroyed  by 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE   UNITY         225 

the  ice  age.  These  appeared  after  that  age  and 
disappeared  about  the  time  of  the  Champlain  sub- 
mergence. "  We  search  in  vain,"  says  Dr.  Daniel 
Wilson,  in  his  "  Prehistoric  Man,"  "  for  any  con- 
necting link  between  the  oldest  historic  races  and 
those  belonging  to  what  Professor  J.  Trimmer 
designates  as  the  '  second  elephantine  period.' ' 

After  these  different  and  widely  scattered 
peoples  had  inhabited  the  earth  for  a  period,  not 
of  indefinite  but  of  comparatively  limited  dura- 
tion ;  after  they  had  settled  in  the  valleys  of  the 
Nile  and  Tigris;  after  they  had  explored  and 
drained  the  swamps  of  Egypt,  and  had  built  up 
the  civilizations  of  those  countries;  after  they 
had  invaded  northeastern  and  northwestern  Asia ; 
after  they  had  made  a  passage  from  northeastern 
Asia  to  northwestern  America,  which  at  that  time 
more  easily  could  have  been  done  than  at  present ; 
after  they  had  crossed  the  Rocky  Mountains  and 
had  fought  the  mighty  mammoth  and  mastodon 
on  our  western  plains  as  they  had  fought  them  in 
Europe  and  Asia ;  then  those  most  ancient  men, 
in  the  midst  of  their  career,  were  destroyed,  and 
their  stone  implements,  as  an  eminent  geologist 
states  the  case,  "  were  carried  forward  with  peb- 
bles washed  out  of  the  surface  chalk,  and  were 
deposited  by  floods  with  sand,  gravels,  or  mud 
where  we  now  find  them." 

In  this  connection  the  words  of  Ermann,  in  his 


226  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

"  Travels  in  Siberia,"  likewise  are  worthy  of 
quotation  :  "  The  ground  in  Yakootsk,  the  internal 
condition  of  which  was  found  while  sinking  M. 
Shergin's  well,  consists,  to  the  depth  of  at  least 
one  hundred  feet,  of  strata  of  loam,  fine  sand,  and 
magnetic  sand.  They  have  been  deposited  from 
waters  which  at  one  time,  and  it  may  be  presumed 
suddenly,  overflowed  the  whole  country  as  far  as 
the  Polar  Sea.  In  these  deepest  strata  are  found 
twigs,  rocks,  and  leaves  of  trees  of  the  birch  and 
willow  kinds.  Everywhere  throughout  these  im- 
mense alluvial  deposits  are  now  lying  the  bones 
of  antediluvian  quadrupeds  along  with  vegetable 
remains  .  .  .  heaped  together  in  great  masses, 
young  and  old,  those  feeding  on  vegetables  and 
those  feeding  on  flesh,  all  swept  into  a  common 
grave  in  beds  of  clay,  surface  gravel,  slate,  and 
loam." 

These  facts  have  led  Sir  Henry  Howorth,  the 
Duke  of  Argyle,  Sir  William  Dawson,  Norden- 
skiold,  Dawkins,  M.  d' Archiac,  Professor  Cope,  and 
the  French  authorities  already  referred  to,  Christy 
and  Lartet,  to  the  conclusion  that  the  early  or 
rough-stone  age  was  brought  to  its  close,  and  the 
mammoth,  mastodon,  and  all  the  larger  and  un- 
wieldy animals  were  destroyed,  "  by  tremendous 
and  destructive  inundations."  And  if  some  of 
the  large  mammals  recently  discovered  in  Siberia, 
whose  flesh  is  still  preserved,  belong  to  the  early 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE  UNITY         227 

stone  age,  as  has  been  claimed,  then  we  have 
another  strong  clue ;  for  the  blood  in  the  capilla- 
ries of  those  animals  is  in  just  the  condition  it- 
would  be  if  they  had  met  death  by  drowning. 

At  that  time,  too,  certain  geographical  changes 
took  place  by  which  the  land  became  less  exten- 
sive than  before  and  water  channels  then  sepa- 
rated territories  that  had  been  united.  Probably 
just  prior  to  that  time  Asia  and  North  America, 
at  a  point  where  now  are  the  Aleutian  Islands  and 
Bering  Strait,  were  undivided  continents,  and  the 
British  Isles  were  part  of  the  continent  of  Europe. 

Nor  is  there  any  reason  for  doubting  that  the 
land  in  the  south  arctic  circle,  during  the  early 
periods  of  human  life  on  the  earth,  had  such  ex- 
tension as  to  allow  of  easy  migration  between  the 
continents  and  adjoining  islands. 

At  the  time  of  this  destructive  deluge,  or  im- 
mediately after,  the  climate  of  Europe,  Asia,  and 
America  appears  to  have  become  more  rigorous 
and  the  continents  took  on  the  outlines  which 
essentially  they  have  retained  to  the  present. 

After  a  period  estimated  all  the  way  from  one 
to  ten  thousand  years,  with  a  constant  tendency 
to  the  lower  estimate,  there  appeared  in  Europe  a 
second  prehistoric  race  of  about  the  same  degree 
of  civilization  as  their  predecessors,  but  of  smaller 
stature,  very  closely  resembling  the  modern  Es- 
kimo,   the   Iberian,   and  the  inhabitants   of  the 


228  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

Canary  Islands.  Whence  they  came  science,  in- 
dependent of  the  Bible  account,  has  been  unable 
to  tell  us. 

With  this  new  race  the  reindeer  and  the  later 
cave-bear  were  contemporaneous,  as  the  mastodon 
and  mammoth  had  been  with  the  race  that  pre- 
ceded. Hence  these  two  prehistoric  peoples  have 
been  termed  respectively  men  of  the  "  mammoth  " 
and  men  of  the  "  reindeer  "  age;  unquestionably 
they  are  not  identical,  and  all  attempts  to  make 
them  so  have  proved  utterly  abortive.  M.  Dupont, 
M.  de  Mortillet,  M.  de  Carlaelhuc,  and  Mr.  James 
Geikie  have  established  beyond  reasonable  ques- 
tion this  "  hiatus  between  the  earlier  and  later 
European  prehistoric  men."  Dr.  Garrigou  ex- 
plored between  two  and  three  hundred  caverns 
in  the  Mediterranean  region,  and  in  every  instance 
found  a  gap  between  the  old  and  the  new  stone 
men. 

This  second  European  race,  now  extinct,  was 
not  destroyed,  however,  by  terrestrial  distur- 
bances or  by  floods  of  water,  as  its  predecessor 
had  been,  but  appears  to  have  been  displaced  or 
exterminated  in  northwestern  Europe  either  by 
the  historic  Celts,  who,  on  both  ethnological  and 
philological  grounds,  are  supposed  to  be  Asiatic  in 
their  origin,  or  by  other  invaders  from  Asia. 

Among  those  who  are  familiar  with  these  sub- 
jects it  no  longer  is  questioned  that  between  the 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE  UNITY         229 

earlier  and  later  prehistoric  peoples  of  America 
there  is  also  a  similar  "  lost  interval."  The  race 
of  men  who  fought  the  mammoth  disappeared,  and 
later  was  succeeded  by  the  mound-builders  and 
their  contemporaries.  D'Orbigny,  whose  studies 
have  been  confined  especially  to  South  America, 
is  authority,  with  others,  for  the  statement  that 
there  is  evidence  from  the  arctic  circle  to  Cape 
Horn  of  a  flood  that  destroyed  the  larger  mam- 
mals and  the  earlier  race  of  stone  men. 

Before  reaching  our  conclusion  two  questions 
briefly  may  be  considered. 

First,  Why  are  there  in  Europe  and  America 
no  remains  or  ruins  of  towns  and  villages  in  which 
some  of  these  earlier  people  must  have  lived  ? 

The  absence  of  evidence  in  this  case  really  need 
be  no  matter  of  surprise  when  we  consider  the 
length  of  time  that  has  intervened,  the  character 
of  building  materials  used,  the  floods  that  over- 
took the  first,  and  the  wars  of  extermination  that 
destroyed  the  men  of  the  second  stone  age. 

The  other  question  until  quite  recently  has 
not  received  a  ready  answer.  It  is  this  :  Among 
the  unlimited  amount  of  ruins  in  Egypt  and  cen- 
tral Asia,  why  are  there  none  that  antedate  the 
flood  ?  The  reply  is,  that  it  is  not  clear  that  such 
ruins  do  not  exist.  The  latest  discoveries  of  Pro- 
fessor Flinders  Petrie,  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished of  English  Egyptologists,  have  been  made 


£>30  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

about  thirty  miles  north  of  Thebes  on  the  western 
shore  of  the  Nile.  The  remains  that  he  has  un- 
earthed are  found  among  gravel  that  geologically 
corresponds  to  the  river  gravels  of  England  and 
France,  in  which  are  the  European  Paleolithic 
(ancient  stone)  remains.  These  discoveries  of 
Petrie  are  not  Egyptian  in  any  respect.  The  art 
is  ruder,  and  the  manner  of  burying  the  dead 
differs  from  that  practised  among  the  Egyptians. 
The  skulls  are  those  of  a  race  of  people  capable  of 
great  things,  having  well-developed  heads,  thin, 
hooked  nose,  high  forehead,  arching  eyebrows, 
straight  teeth,  and  without  any  trace  of  the  negro. 
The  women  had  long  wavy  hair  of  a  brown  color, 
some  specimens  of  which  are  in  a  state  of  fine 
preservation. 

Now  if  it  should  be  established,  as  Professor 
Petrie  conjectures,  that  this  recently  discovered 
prehistoric  race  antedates  the  historic  Egyptian  by 
a  thousand  years,  and  that  between  the  two  there 
is  no  identity,  then  we  may  assume,  until  there  is 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  that  these  earlier  people 
of  Egypt  were  antediluvian  and  contemporary 
with  the  earlier  stone  men  of  Europe  and  with  the 
first  races  that  overspread  America. 

Turning  our  attention  to  that  part  of  Asia  known 
as  Mesopotamia,  there  are  discovered  mounds  of 
different  dates,  and  that  there  is  a  missing  period 
between  the  earliest  settlement  of  the  Tigris  valley 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE  UNITY         231 

and  the  period  when  the  kings  of  Babylon  and 
Assyria  were  fighting  each  other  for  supremacy 
no  longer  is  questioned.  Perhaps  the  most  aston- 
ishing historic  hiatus  is  the  one  occurring  after  the 
reigns  of  Sargon,  Naram-Sin,  Alusharshid,  and 
Lasirab.  For  centuries  and  centuries  following 
the  close  of  these  Mesopotamian  dynasties  the 
whole  country  was  wrapped  in  profound  silence ; 
"  we  discover  no  figure  and  hear  no  sound."  And 
when  those  valleys  more  thoroughly  are  explored 
"  there  is  a  possibility,  if  not  a  probability,"  says 
Professor  Rogers,  "  that  under  some  of  the  many 
mounds  will  be  unearthed  the  ruins  of  cities  that 
were  built  by  an  antediluvian  people." 

This  part  of  our  discussion  hardly  will  be  com- 
plete without  calling  attention  to  the  world's 
tradition  of  a  great  flood  such  as  the  Bible  depicts 
and  such  as,  beyond  question,  the  science  of 
geology  has  now  established. 

So  much  has  been  written  on  the  subject  that 
it  may  be  sufficient  to  say  that  this  tradition  is 
found  among  every  people  on  earth  except  one ; 
that  the  various  accounts  agree  in  these  particu- 
lars :  that  the  deluge  was  universal,  that  it  de- 
stroyed all  but  a  limited  number,  and  that  the 
survivors  were  the  progenitors  of  all  existing 
peoples. 

Since  the  authorities  on  this  subject  are  well- 
nigh  numberless,  we  shall  be  pardoned  for  allow- 


232  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

ing  M.  Francois  Lenormant,  one  of  the  most 
recent  and  distinguished  writers  on  this  subject, 
to  speak  for  others.  In  his  "  Beginning  of  His- 
tory "  he  says  :  "  We  are  in  position  to  affirm  that 
the  account  of  the  deluge  is  a  universal  tradition 
in  all  branches  of  the  human  family,  with  the  sole 
exception  of  the  black  races,  and  a  tradition 
everywhere  so  exact  and  so  concordant  cannot 
possibly  be  referred  to  an  imaginary  myth.  It 
was  an  actual  and  terrible  event,  which  made  so 
powerful  an  impression  upon  the  first  parents  of 
our  species  that  their  descendants  could  never 
forget  it." 

A  brief  summary  and  reiteration  of  this  historic, 
archaeological,  and  geological  survey,  in  which  the 
Bible  record  and  scientific  discoveries  are  brought 
together,  is  now  allowable. 

According  to  the  Bible,  one  family  of  the  ante- 
diluvians is  represented  as  "  nomads  with  mova- 
ble tents,  migrating  widely  over  the  earth  and 
engaged  in  the  rudest  forms  of  a  hunter's  life." 
The  other  family  is  represented  as  leading  a  more 
settled  and  civilized  life.  According  to  geology 
and  archaeology,  the  earliest  people  of  Egypt  and 
Asia  were  of  various  occupations  ;  some  were  ex- 
plorers, while  others  were  the  builders  of  towns 
and  cities. 

The  antediluvians  of  the  Bible  lived  to  an  ad- 
vanced age,  were  defiant,  filled  the  earth  with 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE  UNITY         233 

violence,  and  were  giants  in  stature  and  strength. 
The  prehistoric  men  of  whom  geology  gives  ac- 
count were  possessed  of  the  same  characteristics. 

The  antediluvians  of  the  Bible  were  destroyed 
by  a  deluge  of  waters  caused  by  terrestrial  sub- 
mergences and  torrents  of  rain.  In  like  manner, 
the  early  stone  men  of  Europe  and  America  were 
overtaken  by  the  submergence  that  followed  the 
"  second  continental  "  period  of  geology,  and  there 
is  no  scientific  evidence  that  that  submergence  is 
not  identical  with  the  deluge  of  Noah. 

As  the  case  now  stands,  the  evidence  points  to 
this  conclusion  rather  than  to  any  other,  that  the 
first  settlers  of  Europe  and  America,  and  the  un- 
Egyptian  people  whose  remains  recently  have 
been  discovered  in  that  country,  and  the  pro- 
genitors of  the  prehistoric  races  that  entered  the 
valleys  of  the  Euphrates  and  Tigris  were  contem- 
poraneous, were  the  antediluvians  of  the  Bible,  and 
were  in  common  the  direct  descendants  of  Adam. 

II.    UNITY    OF    THE    RACE 

The  question  of  race  unity,  at  one  time  dis- 
cussed vigorously,  in  late  years  has  been  over- 
shadowed by  the  prominence  with  which  other 
subjects,  especially  the  origin  of  the  species,  and 
evolution,  have  been  forced  into  notice. 

But  very  likely  this  question  of  race  unity  soon 


234  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

will  receive  renewed  attention,  and,  as  it  now 
stands  in  our  pathway,  requires  at  least  a  brief 
consideration. 

The  opinion  of  several  eminent  scientists,  in- 
cluding so  noted  a  man  as  the  elder  Professor 
Agassiz,  is  this :  Though  man  was  brought  into 
being  by  the  direct  interposition  of  the  infinite 
Creator,  yet  the  "  unity  of  the  origin  of  the  race  " 
does  not  follow,  and  instead  of  a  single  pair,  as  the 
Bible  appears  to  teach,  there  were  created  several 
pairs  at  the  same  time  in  different  parts  of  the 
earth.  Still,  it  is  believed  by  Professor  Agassiz 
and  his  friends  that  all  varieties  of  the  human 
family  are  sufficiently  alike  to  be  grouped  as  one 
species.  It  is  said,  also,  that  this  view  of  the 
origin  of  man  is  not  really  in  conflict  with  the 
Bible  account  of  creation,  because  the  writers  of 
the  Bible,  as  is  claimed,  were  directed  not  to  go 
beyond  the  origin  of  the  white  races,  and  to  con- 
fine attention  chiefly  to  the  history  of  Israel. 

While  there  are  some  grounds  for  this  view, 
there  are  many  and  strong  reasons  for  doubting 
in  nearly  every  particular  its  correctness. 

As  our  readers  very  well  know,  the  principal 
sources  of  information  bearing  on  the  subject 
are  tradition,  written  history,  archaeological  re- 
searches, the  study  of  language,  and  that  part  of 
the  study  of  mankind  which  M.  Broca  calls  "  the 
biology  of  the  human  race." 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE  UNITY         235 

With  regard  to  traditional  evidence,  it  may  be 
said  that  no  one  who  has  made  of  it  a  careful  and 
unprejudiced  study  can  fail  to  see  that  the  widely 
prevailing  traditions  of  an  earthly  primitive  para- 
dise, of  the  fall,  and  of  the  deluge,  point  in  the 
direction  of  a  common  origin  for  the  human  family, 
and  as  a  rule  in  no  other  direction. 

John  Christopher  Adelung,  who  is  an  unques- 
tioned authority  in  these  matters,  speaks  thus : 

"  Asia  has  been  in  all  times  regarded  as  the 
country  where  the  human  race  had  its  beginning, 
received  its  first  education,  and  from  which  its 
increase  was  spread  over  the  rest  of  the  globe. 
Tracing  the  people  up  to  tribes,  and  the  tribes  up 
to  families,  we  are  conducted  at  last,  if  not  by 
history,  at  least  by  tradition  of  all  old  people,  to 
a  single  pair,  from  which  families,  tribes,  and  na- 
tions have  been  successively  produced." 

Information  as  to  the  origin  of  the  race  from 
written  history  is  confined  almost  entirely  to  the 
Bible,  and  there  is  no  valid  reason  why  it  should 
not  be  allowed  a  place  among  our  authorities  on 
this  subject. 

Taking  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  together, 
the  view  that  all  mankind  has  descended  from  a 
single  pair  is  indisputably  set  forth  and  in  the 
most  explicit  terms.  In  the  Bible  scheme  of  re- 
demption every  human  being  is  viewed  as  hav- 
ing blood  relations  with  Adam.     The  Greeks  and 


236  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

barbarians  are  represented  as  having  a  common 
origin,  and  God,  we  are  explicitly  told,  "  made  of 
one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all 
the  face  of  the  earth  "  (Acts  xvii.  26). 

Passing  from  tradition  and  written  history  to 
archaeological  researches,  it  is  found  that  certain 
customs  which  have  prevailed  among  peoples 
widely  separated,  such  as  the  worship  of  the  pre- 
Christian  cross,  phallus  worship,  the  building  of 
megalithic  monuments,  the  distorting  of  human 
skulls,  the  depositing  of  flint  implements  and 
other  relics  in  the  graves  of  the  dead,  if  not  ab- 
solutely conclusive,  give  strong  support  to  the 
theory  of  a  common  race  origin. 

The  science  of  comparative  theology  and  re- 
ligion that  brings  together  for  study  the  theo- 
logical and  religious  views  of  different  ages  and 
nations  likewise  reaches  a  similar  conclusion. 

Comparative  philology,  or  the  study  of  the  lan- 
guages of  the  human  family,  is  fuller  of  interest 
and  material  on  this  subject,  perhaps,  than  any 
other  of  the  several  sources  of  information  that 
are  available  to  us. 

While  at  present  there  are  approximately  six 
thousand  spoken  languages,  yet  of  this  large 
number  only  five  or  six  are  more  than  one  thou- 
sand years  old.  And  the  facts  that  words  from 
tongues  most  widely  separated  easily  can  be  in- 
corporated into  one  another,  and  that  certain  roots 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE  UNITY         237 

bearing  striking  resemblances  are  found  in  tongues 
that  in  other  respects  are  the  most  dissimilar,  sug- 
gest a  past  brotherhood  in  all  languages  and, 
therefore,  a  past  brotherhood  of  the  entire  human 
family. 

Canon  Farrar,  in  his  "  Language  and  Lan- 
guages," in  a  passage  of  considerable  brilliancy 
points  out  the  identity  of  the  several  tongues  of 
one  of  the  most  important  of  the  great  families  of 
speech :  "  When  once  a  few  scholars  had  pro- 
foundly studied  it  and  had  published  their  results 
to  the  world, — when  such  a  book  as  Bopp's 
*  Comparative  Grammar '  had  placed  side  by  side 
the  facts  of  nine  such  languages  as  Sanskrit, 
Zend,  Armenian,  Greek,  Latin,  Lithuanian,  Sla- 
vonian, Gothic,  and  German,  and  when  Prichard, 
Zeuss,  Diefenbach,  and  others  had  published  their 
Celtic  labors, — it  could  not  longer  remain  doubt- 
ful to  any  reasonable  man  that  the  stately  Brah- 
man, and  the  gay  Frenchman,  and  the  restless 
Albanian,  and  the  Irish  peasant,  and  the  Russian 
serf,  and  the  Lithuanian  farmer,  and  the  English 
gentleman,  and  the  Dutch  boor — nay,  even  the 
poor  outcast  wandering  Gipsy— all  speak  lan- 
guages which  were  once  a  single  and  undivided 
form  of  human  speech,  and  are  all  sprung  from 
ancestors  who  radiated  from  one  geographical 
center  which  was  their  common  home." 

Professor    Max    Miiller    shows    from    certain 


238  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

radicals  which  have  been  current  in  the  Turanian, 
Semitic,  and  Aryan  branches  of  speech  from  their 
earliest  date  that  beyond  any  question  these 
tongues  have  a  common  origin. 

Chevalier  Bunsen  and  Professor  Robert  Gordon 
Latham,  in  their  study  of  the  Indo-European 
and  the  Coptic  families  of  speech,  reach  a  similar 
conclusion.  Dr.  John  William  Donaldson,  after 
careful  investigation,  insists  that  the  two  great 
branches  of  human  speech,  the  Slavonian  and  the 
Semitic,  are  from  the  same  source.  Dr.  Joseph 
Edkins,  in  his  admirable  book  entitled  "  China's 
Place  in  Philology,"  shows,  by  means  of  Chinese 
monosyllabic  radicals,  that  the  lines  of  affinity  are 
so  strong  between  the  Chinese  and  all  other  lan- 
guages of  the  Old  World  that  a  common  origin 
cannot  be  denied. 

Now  from  these  facts  and  authorities  it  must 
be  confessed  that  comparative  philology  presents 
well-nigh  unanswerable  evidence  not  only  of  "  the 
unity  of  the  human  family,"  but  also  of  "  the  unity 
of  the  origin  of  the  human  family." 

We  pass  next  to  a  consideration  of  what  is 
termed  "  the  biology  of  the  human  race." 

We  ask  for  this  phrase  a  wide  latitude,  and 
note,  in  the  first  place,  that  at  the  present  time 
there  is  scarcely  any  dissent  from  the  opinion  that 
differences  in  physiognomy,  like  differences  in 
speech,  do  not  present  any  such  insurmountable 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE  UNITY         239 

barriers  to  race  unity  as  once  were  supposed  to 
exist.  For  instance,  the  faces  of  Greeks,  Italians, 
Germans,  and  Englishmen  differ,  but  no  one  ques- 
tions that  they  all  are  of  the  same  family  stock  and 
that  the  origin  of  the  family  is  comparatively 
recent. 

The  possible  amalgamation  of  all  branches  of 
the  human  race,  the  same  pulse-beats  and  inhala- 
tions per  minute,  the  same  average  temperature, 
essentially  the  same  wants  and  passions,  are  other 
biological  evidences  in  favor  of  race  unity  and  of 
a  common  origin. 

But  perhaps  expert  opinion,  showing  that  the 
physiological  differences  and  the  wide  and  early 
distributions  of  mankind  are  not  such  as  to  militate 
against  race  unity,  will  be  more  satisfactory  than 
the  grouping  of  facts  and  the  drawing  of  infer- 
ences from  them.  We  therefore  allow  others, 
who  have  made  a  specialty  of  these  studies,  to  ex- 
press their  views,  and  with  these  quotations  con- 
clude this  chapter. 

Dr.  John  Charles  Hall,  in  his  Introduction  to 
Pickering's  "Races  of  Men,"  is  emphatic:  "We 
are  fully  satisfied  that  all  the  races  of  man  are,  as 
the  Bible  clearly  expresses  it,  '  of  one  blood  ' :  the 
black  man,  the  red  man,  and  the  white  man  are 
links  in  one  great  chain  of  relationship  and  are 
children  who  have  descended  from  one  common 
parent." 


240  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Buffon,  in  his  "Natural  History,"  says  :  "  Every 
circumstance  concurs  in  proving  that  mankind  are 
not  composed  of  species  essentially  different  from 
each  other ;  on  the  contrary,  there  was  originally 
but  one  species,  which,  after  multiplying  and 
spreading  on  the  whole  surface  of  the  earth,  has 
undergone  various  changes  by  the  influences  of 
climate,  food,  mode  of  living,  epidemic  diseases, 
and  the  mixture  of  dissimilar  individuals." 

Dr.  Prichard,  in  his  "  Physical  History  of  Man- 
kind," after  speaking  of  the  higher  endowments 
of  humanity  concludes  thus :  "  When  we  compare 
this  fact  with  the  observations  which  have  been 
heretofore  fully  established  as  to  the  specific  in- 
stincts and  separate  physical  endowments  of  all  the 
distinct  tribes  of  sentient  beings  in  the  world,  we 
are  entitled  to  draw  confidently  the  conclusion  that 
all  human  races  are  of  one  species  and  one  family." 

Sir  J.  W.  Dawson,  in  "  Nature  and  the  Bible," 
after  surveying  the  early  history  of  man,  says : 
"  We  may  so  surely  conclude  that  all  the  above 
coincidences  cannot  be  accidental,  and  that  what 
we  know  of  primitive  man  from  geological  inves- 
tigation presents  no  contradiction  to  the  history 
of  his  origin  in  the  Bible,  but  rather  gives  such 
corroboration  as  warrants  the  expectation  that,  as 
our  knowledge  of  prehistoric  men  increases,  it  will 
more  and  more  fully  bring  out  the  force  of  those 
few  and  bold  touches  with  which  it  has  pleased 


PRIMITIVE  MEN  AND  RACE  UNITY         241 

God  to  enable  his  ancient  prophets  to  sketch  the 
early  history  of  our  species." 

Says  Bancroft,  the  historian :  "  Humanity  has 
a  common  character.  The  scholar  may  find 
analogies  in  language,  customs,  institutions,  and 
religion  between  the  aborigines  of  America  and 
any  nation  whatever  of  the  Old  World." 

Says  Professor  Winchell,  in  one  of  his  latest 
books :  "  I  hold  that  the  blood  of  the  first  human 
stock  flows  in  the  veins  of  every  living  human 
being."  And  again:  "  A  chain  of  profound  rela- 
tionship runs  through  the  constitution  of  the 
races,  and  they  may  be  regarded  as  genealogically 
connected  together." 

The  following  quotations  from  Professor  Huxley 
ought  to  be  satisfactory  to  his  admirers,  and  by  the 
friends  of  the  Bible  are  certainly  welcomed  as  a 
valuable  contribution  on  this  subject.  In  his 
"  Critiques  and  Addresses  "  he  says:  "  Granting 
the  polygenist  premises  [he  means  the  theory 
that  living  things  sprang  from  many  cells  or  em- 
bryos of  different  kinds],  you  may  still  with  per- 
fect consistency  be  the  strictest  of  monogenists  [he 
means  those  who  hold  the  opinion  that  all  beings 
are  derived  from  a  single  cell]  and  even  believe 
in  Adam  and  Eve  as  the  primeval  parents  of  all 
mankind.  .  .  .  The  chief  philosophical  objection 
to  Adam  is  not  his  oneness,  but  the  hypothesis  of 
his  special  creation." 


242  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

Elsewhere  in  the  same  book  he  says:  "They 
[the  polygenists]  have  as  yet  completely  failed  to 
adduce  satisfactory  positive  proof  of  the  specific 
diversity  of  mankind.  .  .  .  The  assumption  of 
more  than  one  primitive  stock  for  all  is  altogether 
superfluous." 


CHAPTER   XII 

The  Trinity  and  the  Logos 

i.  the  trinity  from  a  philosophical  and 
scientific  point  of  view 

How  did  man  and  woman,  between  six  and  ten 
thousand  years  ago,  come  upon  this  earth  ?  is  still 
the  unanswered  question.  It  is  apparently  a 
matter  forever  settled  that  they  could  not  have 
come  through  any  of  the  processes  of  naturalistic 
evolution  thus  far  proposed. 

So  far  as  this  question  is  concerned,  if  we  may 
be  allowed  to  personify  naturalism,  we  should  say 
that  it  is  at  the  present  time  a  wounded  man, 
quite  sick,  much  out  of  sorts  and  out  of  breath, 
in  its  fruitless  endeavors  to  account  for  the  origin 
of  things.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  cer- 
tainly the  privilege  of  supernaturalism  to  offer  its 
own  hypothesis  and  to  present  whatever  evidence 
there  is  in  its  support. 

But  at  the  outset  supernaturalism  is  confronted 
243 


244  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

by  a  very  serious  theological  difficulty,  which  may 
be  stated  in  the  form  of  a  question  : 

How  can  the  First  Cause,  or  the  supernatural, 
invisible,  infinite,  and  eternal  Something  or  Some 
One  which  supernaturalism  presupposes,  come  in 
contact  with  a  visible  and  finite  universe?  Or,  to 
state  the  question  in  another  form,  How  can  an 
infinite  and  invisible  Being  create  matter,  make  a 
system  of  worlds,  handle  clay  and  form  it  into  a 
man,  or  into  anything  like  a  man,  or  into  a  mass 
of  bioplasm  ? 

In  answering  this  question  we  are  introduced 
to  one  of  the  profoundest  and,  in  the  judgment 
of  some  people,  one  of  the  most  perplexing  if  not 
self-contradictory  doctrines  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, a  doctrine  that  is  said  to  require  a  belief  in 
the  stupendous  absurdity  that  three  are  one,  and 
that  one  is  three. 

Our  reply  ought  to  be  anticipated  that  no  one 
can  believe  a  proposition  that  is  self-contradictory. 
Mathematically,  three  never  have  been  one,  and 
never  can  be  one  ;  and  one  never  has  been  three, 
and  never  can  be  three.  In  the  realm  of  figures 
such  a  dogma  would  be  treason  anywhere  in  the 
physical  universe,  and  the  stability  of  the  universe 
would  be  disturbed,  if  not  overthrown,  by  the  in- 
troduction into  it  of  such  a  mathematical  anar- 
chism. 

Hence  we  are  led  to  say  that  naturalistic  Uni- 


THE   TRINITY  AND    THE  LOGOS  245 

tarianism,  when  asserting  that  Trinitarianism 
teaches  a  mathematical  Trinity,  or  that  it  teaches 
that  there  are  at  the  same  time  three  Gods  and 
only  one  God,  is  criticizing  a  man  of  straw.  Such 
a  belief,  we  repeat,  is  impossible  and  unintelligi- 
ble, is  not  the  faith  of  any  Trinitarian  who  has 
given  the  subject  serious  thought,  and  is  not  found 
in  any  of  the  creeds  of  Christendom. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  a  metaphysical  Trinity 
may  enter  into  the  belief  of  the  most  intelligent  of 
men,  and  is  no  more  impossible  or  strange  in  the 
divine  nature  than  any  other  mode  of  existence 
would  be.  Our  criticism  upon  naturalistic  Uni- 
tarianism,  in  part,  is  that  it  makes  God  too  small 
and  limits  him  where  there  is  no  need  of  limita- 
tion. It  gives  to  him  but  one  consciousness, 
while  the  universe,  on  the  ground  of  self-consis- 
tency, requires  in  a  Creator,  as  presently  we  shall 
see,  at  least  a  threefold  consciousness. 

Gotthold  Ephraim  Lessing,  one  of  Germany's 
most  distinguished  art  critics  and  philosophers, 
puts  the  subject,  not  in  the  cold  dogmatic  state- 
ment of  theology,  but  in  plain  speech  and  with 
remarkable  suggestiveness,  thus :  "  How  if  this 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  should,  after  numberless 
deviations  right  and  left,  bring  the  human  under- 
standing finally  on  the  way  to  perceive  that  God, 
in  the  understanding  wherein  finite  things  are 
one,  can  by  no  possibility  be  one — that  his  unity 


246  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

must  be  a  transcendental  unity,  which  does  not 
exclude  a  kind  of  plurality?  " 

To  this  question  of  Lessing  we  add  another; 
namely,  May  it  not  be  just  as  easy  or  natural  for 
God  to  exist  with  a  threefold  consciousness  as  for 
a  human  being  to  exist  with  what  is  supposed  to 
be  a  single  consciousness? 

After  a  moment's  self-inspection  no  thoughtful 
person  can  escape  the  conclusion  that  without  any 
stupendous  difficulty  even  a  human  being  might 
exist  with  a  double  or  threefold  consciousness. 

That  good  something  and  that  bad  something 
that  every  one  feels  within,  and  also  that  other 
something  within  that  judges  and  decides  between 
the  other  two  (Rom.  vii.  15-35),  so  far  as  we  can 
see,  might  be  developed  until  they  each  could 
have  a  pronounced  individual  distinctness,  the 
personality  of  the  man  remaining  the  same  as 
before.  And,  on  further  thought,  it  would  seem 
that  long  ago  naturalism  should  have  suggested 
that  this  antagonistic  nature  of  man  is  a  sort  of 
threefold  embryonic  consciousness  which  in  an- 
other stage  of  existence,  when  the  evolution  of 
the  human  mind  and  soul  is  complete,  will  be  per- 
fected. And,  as  a  result  of  that  perfected  evolu- 
tion, heaven  may  consist  partly  in  the  harmonious 
working  of  this  fully  developed  threefold  con- 
sciousness, and  hell  may  be  in  part  a  perpetual 
mutiny  within  the  unregenerated  man,  which  even 


THE   TRINITY  AND    THE  LOGOS  247 

now,  while  the  soul  is  only  on  the  threshold  of 
what  it  is  to  be,  is  bitter  enough  to  produce  the 
intensest  misery  (Rom.  vii.  24).  This  unfolding 
of  a  threefold  consciousness,  with  heaven  in  one 
soul  and  hell  in  another,  would  be  far  less  surpris- 
ing than  the  evolution  of  the  wonderfully  endowed 
human  body  from  a  bit  of  living  protoplasm,  and 
vastly  less  surprising  than  any  of  the  false  schemes 
of  evolution  that  naturalism  has  been  trying  to 
defend. 

But,  returning  to  the  doctrine  under  discussion, 
no  reader  of  the  Bible  can  fail  to  see  that  it  teaches 
that  there  is  one  God,  and  only  one,  but  that  his 
nature  has  in  it  a  threefoldness.  To  say  that  such 
a  doctrine  is  an  absurdity  would  be  the  same  as 
to  say  that  a  sunbeam  is  an  absurdity.  It  was 
shown  by  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  and  still  further  was 
established  and  illustrated  by  Professor  John 
William  Draper,  that  in  every  one  of  the  million 
sunbeams  which  reach  the  earth  are  wrapped  up 
three  distinct  forces — the  illuminating  force,  the 
heat  force,  and  the  chemical  force.  And  yet  these 
distinct  forces  do  not  destroy,  so  to  speak,  the 
personality  of  the  sunbeam.  It  is  one  thing,  and 
always  is  spoken  of  in  the  singular  number.  In 
this  fact  is  a  suggestion  that  naturalism  need 
not  hesitate  to  recognize,  which  put  in  definite 
form  is  this :  there  is  an  invisible  universe  back 
of  and  above  the  visible  universe,  and  both  arc 


248  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

made  on  the  same  general  plan ;  so  that  the  in- 
visible one  may  be  inferred  from  the  visible. 

It  follows,  too,  that  if  in  the  invisible  universe 
there  is  a  First  Cause,  his  nature  and  character 
may  be  inferred  from  the  natural  and  visible 
phenomena  that  he  has  created.  Now,  applying 
this  suggestion  or  inference  to  the  specific  subject 
before  us,  the  formula  takes  this  shape  :  If  a  Trin- 
ity exists  in  the  invisible  universe,  or  if  the  First 
Cause  is  a  Trinity,  then  physical  nature  should 
report  the  fact  throughout  her  domains.  Is  this 
the  case  ?  becomes,  therefore,  at  this  point  a  ques- 
tion of  prime  importance. 

So  far  as  the  threefoldness  and  unity  of  the 
sunbeam  are  concerned,  there  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
no  question.  But  we  must  extend  our  observa- 
tion if  we  would  escape  the  common  peril  of  mak- 
ing an  induction  from  limited  data. 

For  a  few  moments  let  us  place  ourselves  for 
the  purpose  of  observation  outside  the  bounds  of 
all  physical  existences  (if  there  is  such  a  place). 
One  of  the  first  things  attracting  attention  would 
be  what  Professor  Huxley  has  called  "  unity  of 
substantial  composition."  That  is  to  say,  we 
are  confronted  by  a  universe  of  matter  whose 
composition  is  essentially  the  same  substance. 
Next  we  should  discover  that  the  universe  is  the 
theater  of  innumerable  forces  whose  play  is  un- 
ceasing and  whose  variety  apparently  is  without 


THE   TRINITY  AND    THE  LOGOS  249 

limit.  But  in  its  last  analysis  this  endless  variety 
of  forces,  this  universal  and  eternal  vibration  of 
forces,  is  found  to  be  one  and  the  same  infinite 
power.  The  phrase  used  by  Professor  Huxley  to 
designate  this  phenomenon  is  "  unity  of  power." 
The  third  observation  that  we  should  make  is  de- 
scribed by  this  same  professor  as  "  unity  of  form." 
Now,  is  it  not  singular  that,  without  any  supposed 
leaning  toward  theology,  this  distinguished  natu- 
ralist, as  the  result  of  his  many  investigations,  has 
announced  the  following  trinitarian  formula? 
"  Unity  of  power,  unity  of  form,  and  unity  of 
substantial  composition  "  make  up  the  one  physi- 
cal universe. 

The  late  Professor  Benjamin  Peirce,  of  Harvard 
University,  is  the  author  of  a  scientific  lecture 
whose  subject  is  "  The  Combining  of  Law,  Force, 
and  Intention  in  the  Universe." 

Under  the  title  "  Sociology  and  Cosmology," 
in  a  paper  just  issued,  Lester  F.  Ward,  paleo- 
botanist  of  the  United  States  Survey,  enumerates 
as  the  essentials  and  constants  of  the  universe, 
first,  "  form "  (worlds,  plants,  animals),  second, 
"forces,"  and,  third,   "law  of  evolution." 

The  words  employed  by  these  three  distinguished 
scientists  differ,  but  the  thought  they  have  in 
mind  appears  to  be  the  same,  and  is  a  confession 
that  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  is  written  on  the 
face  of  the  universe  as  really  as  Sir  Isaac  New- 


250  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

ton  and  Dr.  Draper  found  it  infolded  in  the  sun- 
beam. 

Another  illustration  is  a  very  simple  one  that 
will  require  no  mental  strain  to  follow. 

We  lift  our  eyes  from  the  page  we  are  reading 
and  look  at  some  object,  say  a  tree.  We  note 
that  it  is  made  up  of  solid  matter  (leaves,  bark, 
woody  fiber,  etc.),  which  is  visible.  In  addition 
there  are  in  the  composition  of  the  tree  force  and 
law.  It  is  force  that  builds  the  tree,  and  it  is  law 
that  governs  the  building  of  it.  Hence  in  its 
essential  composition  the  tree  is  a  trinity ;  and 
these  three  factors,  and  nothing  else,  enter  into 
the  constitution  of  the  tree. 

Still  further  it  should  be  noted  that  the  elimi- 
nation of  either  of  these  factors  would  do  away 
with  the  tree.  The  material  and  the  force  without 
law  would  result  in — well,  anything  you  please ; 
it  might  be  an  earth  mound  or  a  flash  of  lightning, 
but  a  million  chances  to  one  the  resultant  would 
not  be  a  tree. 

The  material  and  the  law  without  force  could 
not  build  a  tree.  The  substance  of  the  tree  would 
remain  forever  in  the  soil  and  in  the  atmosphere. 

And,  too,  the  law  and  the  force  without  matter, 
so  far  as  the  natural  eye  can  see,  would  result  in 
nothing  but  empty  space.  It  is  as  Goethe  say's : 
"  The  beautiful  is  a  manifestation  of  the  secret 
laws  of  nature,  which  but  for  this  appearance  had 


THE   TRINITY  AND    THE  LOGOS  251 

been  forever  concealed  from  us."  We  repeat, 
therefore,  that  the  tree  is  essentially  a  oneness  and 
a  threeness — a  trinity. 

Or  we  may  lift  our  eyes  from  the  tree  to  the 
stars.  Those  heavenly  bodies  are  constituted  of 
matter,  are  controlled  by  laws,  and  are  propelled 
by  forces.  But  the  laws  that  govern  them  in 
their  stupendous  orbits  and  the  forces  that  hurl 
them  through  spaces  of  bewildering  magnitude 
are  invisible.  It  is  the  material  in  the  composition 
of  the  stars  that  makes  known  their  existence  and 
also  the  existence  of  the  laws  and  the  forces  that 
govern  them.  Everywhere  in  the  universe,  as 
naturalism  tells  us,  there  are  these  invisible  laws, 
invisible  forces,  and  material  manifestations. 

Three  writers  of  note  very  explicitly  have  set 
forth  these  thoughts,  each,  however,  independently 
of  the  others. 

John  Gottlieb  Fichte,  one  of  the  profoundest 
speculative  minds  Germany  has  given  to  the 
world,  after  going  the  rounds  of  philosophy  and 
theology  declared  that  "  the  moral  order  of  the 
world,"  which  is  a  "  law  of  the  universe,"  is  God. 
And  we  will  not  dispute  him. 

Thomas  Carlyle,  after  giving  much  thought  to 
natural  phenomena,  exclaimed,  "  Force,  force, 
everywhere  force !  Illimitable  whirlwind  of  force, 
which  envelops  us  ;  everlasting  whirlwind,  high  as 
immensity,  old  as  eternity — what  is  it?"     He 


252  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

stopped  a  moment,  and  then  answered,  "  It  is 
Almighty  God ! "  This  is  true,  but  not  the  whole 
truth. 

Professor  Alexander  Bain,  fixing  his  eye  on 
visible  nature,  declared,  in  common  with  all  atheis- 
tic materialists,  that  "  nature  is  God."  And  he 
is  partly,  at  least  metaphorically,  right;  for  the 
material  universe,  when  asked,  "  Show  us  the 
Father,"  could  reply,  as  Christ  did  to  Philip: 
"  Have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you,  and  yet  hast 
thou  not  known  me,  Philip?  he  that  hath  seen 
me  hath  seen  the  Father." 

Now,  what  we  may  insist  on  and  what  no  one 
will  deny,  unless  very  obstinate,  is  that  in  the 
universe  there  is  law,  which  Fichte  declares  is 
God ;  there  is  power,  which  Carlyle  declares  is 
God ;  there  is  material  manifestation,  which  Pro- 
fessor Bain  declares  is  God ;  and  these  three,  as 
Professors  Huxley  and  Peirce  and  Lester  F.  Ward 
assure  us,  constitute  the  one  physical  universe,  all 
of  which  can  mean  nothing  less  than  this :  that  the 
First  Cause  has  builded  into  the  material  universe 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  clearly  and  emphat- 
ically as  it  is  revealed  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
These  sayings  of  Fichte,  Carlyle,  Bain,  Huxley, 
Peirce,  and  Ward  are  a  suggestive  commentary 
on  the  remarkable  announcement  of  the  apostle, 
"  The  invisible  things  of  him  from  the  creation  of 
the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by 


THE    TRINITY  AND    THE  LOGOS  253 

the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power 
and  Godhead"  (Rom.  i.  20). 

Naturalism  may  hesitate  to  take  the  next  step, 
which  leads  still  further  into  the  domains  of  the- 
ology, but  the  invitation  to  it  is  extended. 

Christian  theology  teaches  that  the  Father  is 
the  lawgiver  of  the  universe.  Law  is  his  symbol. 
It  teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  source  of 
power  and  activity  in  the  universe.  Power  is  his 
symbol.  It  teaches  that  the  Logos  is  the  mani- 
festation of  the  otherwise  invisible  Father  and 
Spirit.      Manifestation  is  his  symbol. 

Now  that  there  are  three  distinct  factors  con- 
stituting the  universe  (law,  force,  and  manifesta- 
tion), naturalism  cannot  question.  That  each  of 
these  factors  has  a  distinct  source  is  a  proposition 
that  will  stand  the  test  of  any  amount  of  investiga- 
tion. That  these  sources  exist  in  a  First  Cause 
that  may  be  called  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
the  Father  representing  law,  the  Son  representing 
manifestation,  the  Spirit  representing  power,  is  a 
proposition  in  which  we  challenge  naturalistic 
Unitarianism  to  point  out  a  single  thing  that  is 
unscientific  or  unphilosophical.  And  that  unity 
of  constitution,  as  an  attribute  of  the  threefold 
being  called  the  First  Cause,  is  possible  and  is  as 
rational  as  the  constitution  of  the  universe,  no  one 
can  dispute. 

In  due  time  it  may  turn  out,  therefore,  that  the 


254  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

words,  "  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  have  a  depth  of 
meaning  that  no  naturalistic  plummet  has  begun 
to  sound.  If  the  age  of  thinking  is  not  past  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  will  rest  some  day  upon 
an  intellectual  basis  so  much  more  profound  than 
hitherto  has  been  imagined  that  among  thought- 
ful men  all  controversy,  except  perhaps  with  re- 
gard to  the  formula  employed,  will  come  to  an  end. 
If,  therefore,  the  First  Cause  has  a  threefold 
consciousness,  and  if  it  is  the  function  or  office  of 
one  of  the  consciousnesses  to  make  manifest  other- 
wise invisible  existences,  and,  further,  if  one  of 
the  ways  of  making  the  invisible  manifest  is  by 
creating  a  temporal,  visible,  and  material  universe, 
then  the  greatest,  or  one  of  the  greatest,  of  our 
theological  difficulties  is  removed,  and  a  supernat- 
ural creation  becomes  not  only  possible,  but,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  reasonable  and  perhaps 
necessary.  For  creation  is  simply  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  eternal  First  Cause  by  the  Logos,  which 
manifestation  is  as  natural  as  is  any  other  act  that 
can  be  attributed  to  that  First  Cause,  as  natural 
as  it  is  for  a  being  endowed  with  speech  to  talk. 

II.    AN    APPEAL    TO    THE   BIBLE 

We  now  have  reached  a  point  beyond  which 
we  cannot  proceed  without  making  a  still  more 


THE   TRINITY  AND   THE  LOGOS  255 

specific  appeal  to  revealed  theology.  And  we 
ask  naturalism  to  follow  not  blindly  nor  carelessly, 
for  the  path  before  us,  every  step  of  the  way, 
may  be  tested.  In  these  matters  and  at  this  point 
we  first  submit  to  naturalism  the  question  whether 
the  Bible,  which  is  the  source  of  revealed  theology, 
has  not  some  claims  to  our  consideration. 

In  this  treatise  we  cannot  present  at  any  con- 
siderable length  the  evidence  of  the  credibility  of 
the  Bible,  but  we  may  ask  of  naturalism  three  or 
four  questions. 

Is  it  not  remarkable  that  the  Book  of  Genesis 
denied  the  eternity  of  matter,  while  other  ancient 
writings  asserted  it?  Is  it  not  also  remarkable 
that  the  Book  of  Genesis  employs  "  a  transitive 
verb  in  a  species  of  conjugation  where  it  is  never 
used  of  human  actions,  and  where  there  is  no  di- 
rect object  on  which  its  action  is  expended"?  Such 
Hebrew  scholars  as  Delitzsch,  Gesenius,  Aben 
Ezra,  Miihlan  and  Volck,  Dillmann  and  Ewald, 
have  established  for  us  the  meaning  of  the  word 
bara,  translated  in  our  Bible  "  created."  That 
verb  in  the  kal  species  as  found  in  Genesis  "  has 
acquired,"  says  Delitzsch  in  his  "  Commentary," 
"  the  idiomatic  meaning  of  a  divine  creating  which, 
whether  in  the  kingdom  of  nature,  or  of  history, 
or  of  the  spirit,  calls  into  being  that  which  hitherto 
had  no  existence.  It  never  appears  as  the  word 
for  human  creations,  differing  in  this  from  nbvf 


256  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

IT,  T?%  which  are  used  both  of  men  and  of 
God." 

Is  it  not  remarkable  that  this  same  verb  is  used 
j/  to  represent  the  creation  of  animal  life  and  of  the 
soul  of  man,  in  complete  rejection  of  spontaneous 
generation,  which  was  confidently  and  quite  gen- 
erally believed  until  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  ? 

And  is  not  this  all  the  more  remarkable  since 
only  a  few  years  ago  the  scientific  world  was 
going  mad  on  evolution,  while  now  the  great 
majority  of  scientists,  represented  by  such  men 
./as  Wallace,  Romanes,  Mivart,  Agassiz,  and  Dana, 
have  stepped  out  of  the  ranks  of  thoroughgoing 
evolutionists  and  have  announced  their  belief  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  primary  creation  of  the  human 
soul? 

Is  it  not  remarkable,  too,  that  the  Book  of 
Genesis  four  thousand  years  ago  recorded  the  fact 
that  vegetable  life  was  created  prior  to  animal  life, 
while  it  is  only  a  recent  discovery  of  biology  that 
vegetables  alone  can  manufacture  protoplasm 
from  the  atmosphere,  the  water,  and  the  soils,  and 
that  animal  life  is  dependent  upon  vegetable  proto- 
plasm, and  that  only  recently  has  geology  made 
it  absolutely  certain  that  plant  life  preceded  ani- 
mal life,  thus  confirming  Bible  revelation? 

And  is  it  any  less  remarkable  that  long  ago 
this  same  book  announced  the  unity  of  the  race, 
the  origin  of  the  species,  and  the  dual  constitu- 


THE   TRINITY  AND    THE  LOGOS  257 

tion  of  man  in  such  a  way  as  to  meet  the  present 
requirements  of  ethnology,  physiology,  and  psy- 
chology ? 

Certainly  there  are  grounds  for  the  claim  of 
Sir  William  Dawson,  who,  in  the  closing  sentence 
of  his  "  Nature  and  the  Bible,"  says,  "  And  finally 
I  may  state,  as  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter, 
that  the  Bible  contains  within  itself  all  that,  under 
God,  is  required  to  account  for  and  dispose  of  all 
forms  of  infidelity,  and  to  turn  to  the  best  and 
highest  uses  all  that  man  can  learn  of  nature." 

And  Professor  Dana  had  thought  the  ground 
over  and  must  have  had  reason  for  saying  that 
"  there  is  so  much  in  the  Scriptures  which  the 
most  recent  readings  of  science  have  for  the  first 
time  explained  that  the  idea  of  man  as  the  author 
becomes  utterly  incomprehensible." 

Nor  was  the  prophecy  of  the  learned  Duke  of 
Argyle  thoughtlessly  uttered : 

"  The  time  is  perhaps  nearer  than  we  anticipate 
when  natural  science  and  theology  will  unite  in 
the  conviction  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
stands  alone  among  the  traditions  of  mankind  in 
the  wonderful  simplicity  and  grandeur  of  its 
words,  and  that  the  meaning  of  these  words  is 
always  a  meaning  ahead  of  science,  not  because 
it  anticipates  the  results  of  science,  but  because 
it  is  independent  of  them  and  runs,  as  it  were, 
round  the  outer  margin  of  all  possible  discovery." 


258  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Are  there  not  also  grounds  forFichte's  question 
and  answer?  "Who  educated  the  first  human 
pair?  A  Spirit  interested  himself  in  them,  as  is 
laid  down  by  an  old,  venerable,  primeval  document 
which,  taken  altogether,  contains  the  profoundest, 
sublimest  wisdom  and  discloses  results  to  which 
all  philosophy  must  at  last  come." 

And  the  confession  of  the  late  Lieutenant 
Maury  of  the  United  States  navy,  distinguished 
on  account  of  both  his  valuable  scientific  discov- 
eries and  his  published  works,  was  not  made 
hastily,  but  after  years  of  thoughtful  investigation : 
"  I  have  always  found  in  my  scientific  studies  that 
when  I  could  get  the  Bible  to  say  anything  on 
the  subject  it  afforded  me  a  firm  platform  to  stand 
upon  and  a  round  in  the  ladder  by  which  I  could 
safely  ascend." 

Or  would  it  be  ill  becoming  in  us  to  listen  at- 
tentively to  Sir  John  Herschel  when  saying  that 
"  all  human  discoveries  seem  to  be  made  only  for 
the  purpose  of  confirming  more  and  more  strongly 
the  truths  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures"? 

And  while  Professor  Huxley's  words  do  not 
bear  especially  upon  the  subject  under  considera- 
tion, still  they  are  in  such  contrast  with  many  of 
the  careless  and  flippant  sayings  of  infidelity  that 
we  quote  them :  "  Take  the  Bible  as  a  whole, 
make  the  severest  deductions  which  fair  criticism 
can  dictate,  and  there  still  remains  in  this  old  liter- 


We  trinity  and  the  logos        259 

ature    a    vast    residuum    of    moral    beauty    and 
grandeur." 

Now,  in  all  candor,  we  ask  if  we  have  not  a 
sufficient  number  of  facts  and  sufficient  expert 
opinion  in  both  quality  and  quantity  to  justify  us 
in  giving  the  Bible  a  place  among  other  authori- 
ties in  settling  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the 
species,  including  the  creation  of  man  and  woman. 

III.    THE    LOGOS    IN    HISTORY 

If  we  are  now  permitted  to  refer  to  the  Bible, 
we  shall  discover  that  the  Logos,  called  oftenest 
in  the  Old  Testament  the  Angel  of  the  Lord, 
the  first  visible  manifestation  in  the  universe 
(Heb.  i.  6),  was  wont  to  appear  on  earth.  He  was 
in  Eden  before  the  creation  of  Adam  and  Eve, 
and  there  is  reason  for  supposing  that  after  they 
had  been  called  into  being  he  had  frequent  inter- 
views with  this  father  and  mother  of  the  human 
race.  It  was  from  the  presence  of  the  Logos  that 
the  offending  and  guilty  pair  sought  to  hide  them- 
selves among  the  trees  of  the  garden.  It  was  this 
Logos  who  walked  with  Enoch,  talked  with  Noah, 
appeared  to  Abraham,  wrestled  with  Jacob  by 
the  ford  Jabbok,  gave  the  law  to  Moses  in  the 
mount,  and  communed  in  the  furnace  with  the 
three  young  Hebrews.  In  general  it  may  be  said 
that,  "  while  the  angels  mentioned  in  the  New 


260  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

Testament  seem  always  to  have  been  personal 
agents,  yet  in  the  Old  Testament  the  so-called 
angels  are,  for  the  most  part,  the  sensible  mani- 
festations of  Jehovah  himself  through  the  medium 
of  some  impersonal  emblem  "  such  as  a  flame,  or 
a  cloud,  or  a  human  body,  or  some  other  visible 
semblance,  which  was  called  the  Angel  of  Jehovah. 

These  were  epiphanies  of  the  Logos,  and  as 
really  such  as  was  his  appearance  in  the  form  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  now  nearly  two  thousand  years 
ago ;  this  difference,  however,  must  be  noted : 
that  those  variable  and  transient  appearances  re- 
corded in  the  Old  Testament  gave  place  to  a  per- 
manent incarnation  when  the  Logos  was  born  of 
a  woman  and  dwelt  among  us.  In  other  words, 
when  that  remarkable  personage,  called  Jesus, 
crossed  the  threshold  of  this  world  other  like  mani- 
festations ceased  and  the  highest  point  in  the  evo- 
lution of  supernatural  manifestations  was  reached. 
Among  the  millions  of  the  human  race,  by  univer- 
sal consent  he  alone  stands  forth  as  the  pattern  of 
absolute  perfection,  a  marvel  so  great  as  to  defy  all 
naturalistic  explanations.  Not  until  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth is  accredited  with  being  an  actual  manifesta- 
tion of  the  First  Cause,  the  Logos,  the  Creator,  do 
our  speculative  difficulties  come  to  an  end. 

And  it  is  this  Logos  in  human  form  who  is  to 
come  again  among  the  clouds  and  is  to  sit  upon 
the  throne  of  the  universe  to  judge  the  people. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

Christ  the  Creator 

i.  creation  of  material  forms  and   the 
gift  of  life 

The  reasonableness  of  appealing  to  the  Bible 
on  all  matters  concerning  which  it  speaks  has 
been  firmly  enough  established  to  justify  the  use 
we  now  make  of  its  disclosures  as  to  the  author 
of  creation.  And  no  one  who  reads  carefully  its 
revelations  can  doubt  that  it  teaches  clearly,  re- 
peatedly, and  emphatically  that  Christ  before  he 
was  born  in  Palestine  appeared  somewhere  on 
earth  in  a  place  called  Eden ;  that  there  he  cre- 
ated man  and  woman,  and  that  to  them,  as  to  all 
other  living  organisms  at  the  outset,  he  gave  life, 
and  endowed  that  life  with  the  power  of  self- 
propagation. 

In  the  Gospel  according  to  John  are  the  an- 
nouncements that  "  all  things  were  made  by  him ; 
and  without  him  was  not  anything  made  that  was 
261 


262  EVOLUTION  Or  CREATION? 

made  "  ;  "he  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world 
was  made  by  him  "  (John  i.  3,  10). 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  we  read  :  "  For 
by  him  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in  hea- 
ven, and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible, 
whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  princi- 
palities, or  powers :  all  things  were  created  by 
him,  and  for  him  :  and  he  is  before  all  things,  and 
by  him  all  things  consist"  (Col.  i.  16,  17). 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  this  same  ex- 
altation and  creative  power  of  Christ  are  expanded 
and  emphasized  :  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and 
in  divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the 
fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days 
spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  ap- 
pointed heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  also  he  made 
the  worlds.  .  .  .  Unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy 
throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever :  a  scepter 
of  righteousness  is  the  scepter  of  thy  kingdom. 
Thou  hast  loved  righteousness,  and  hated  ini- 
quity ;  therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy 
fellows.  And,  Thou,  Lord  [the  "  God-said,"  the 
"  God-word,"  the  "Christ"],  in  the  beginning  hast 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens 
are  the  works  of  thine  hands"  (Heb.  i.  1,  2,  8-10). 

The  harmony  between  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New  is  manifest  when,  as  the  Bible  writers 
undoubtedly  intended,  the  "  God-said  "  of  Gene- 


CHRIST  THE  CREATOR.  263 

sis  and  the  "  God-word  "  of  the  gospel  are  made 
identical.  Moses  introduces  his  account  with  this 
sentence :  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth."  John  introduces  his  gos- 
pel with  the  words,  "  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  .  .  .  and  the  Word  was  God.  .  .  .  All  things 
were  made  by  him."  Also  we  are  told  that  when 
their  mission  is  accomplished  this  same  creating 
One  is  to  bring  all  material  things  to  an  end,  which 
will  be  at  the  incoming  of  a  new  dispensation : 
"  They  shall  perish,  but  thou  remainest :  and  they 
all  shall  wax  old  as  doth  a  garment ;  and  as  a 
vesture  shalt  thou  fold  them  up."  It  is  as  if  the 
apostle  had  said,  "  As  a  vesture  shalt  thou,  O 
Christ,  fold  up  the  material  universe,  and  all  visible 
things  shall  be  changed ;  but  thou  art  the  same, 
and  thy  years  shall  not  fail  "  (Heb.  i.  1 1,  12). 

However  mysterious  and  perplexing  it  may 
seem,  still  nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  the 
Bible  bestows  this  creative  and  destructive  power 
upon  Christ,  and  upon  him  alone. 

It  would  seem  to  follow  without  the  need  of 
argument  that  he  who  created  the  organisms  of 
all  creatures  was  also  the  one  who  endowed  those 
organisms  with  life.  And  this  conclusion,  as  one 
hardly  need  be  told,  is  confirmed  by  the  reiter- 
ated teachings  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  They 
represent  Christ  as  the  one,  and  the  only  one, 
who  came  down  from  heaven  and  gave  life  unto 


264  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

the  world.  He  is  the  one  by  whom  all  things 
consist,  and  he  is  the  one  who  breathed  the  breath 
of  life  into  Adam  (John  vi.  33;  Col.  i.  17;  Gen. 
ii.  7). 

It  will  not  be  a  wide  departure  from  the  design 
we  have  in  mind  to  add  that  with  special  empha- 
sis the  Bible  teaches  that  Christ  is  the  only  source 
of  spiritual  as  well  as  of  physical  life. 

A  few  of  the  many  passages  are  the  following : 
"  In  him  was  life ;  and  the  life  was  the  light  of 
men"  (John  i.  4).  "  He  that  believeth  on  the 
Son  hath  everlasting  life  "  (John  iii.  36).  "  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  am  the  bread  of  life.  ...  I 
am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  hea- 
ven :  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live 
forever"  (John  vi.  35,  51).  "  Jesus  said  unto 
her,  I  am  the  resurrection,  and  the  life :  he  that 
believeth  in  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall 
he  live  "  (John  xi.  25).  "  And  many  other  signs 
truly  did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of  his  disciples, 
which  are  not  written  in  this  book :  but  these  are 
written,  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing  ye 
might  have  life  through  his  name  "  (John  xx. 
30,  31).  "  And  this  is  the  record,  that  God  hath 
given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son. 
He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life  ;  and  he  that  hath  not 
the  Son  of  God  hath  not  life  "  (1  John  v.  11,  12). 

And  the  sooner  the  world  learns  the  source  of 


CHRIST   THE   CREATOR  265 

its  true  and  eternal  life  the  better  will  it  be  for 
the  children  of  men.  Churches  may  be  built,  re- 
ligious societies  may  organize  and  be  of  immense 
service  to  mankind,  revolutions  may  purify  the 
political  atmosphere,  social  reforms  and  philan- 
thropic enterprises  may  bless  the  world,  and  cer- 
tainly they  speak  well  for  the  nobility  and  charity 
of  the  race ;  but  none  of  these  things  can  give 
spiritual  life  to  humanity  any  more  than  chemistry 
can  vitalize  a  piece  of  common  clay.  Spiritual 
like  physical  life  finds  its  source  in  Christ,  and  in 
Christ  alone,  whose  own  life  is  eternal. 

II.    CREATION    OF    MAN 

Geology,  biology,  ethnology,  and  tradition, 
taken  together  or  separately,  go  to  show  that 
the  climate  of  this  world  when  man  made  his  ap- 
pearance was  far  milder  and  more  equitable  than 
now.  Over  both  Siberia  and  Alaska  roamed 
large  and  warm-blooded  animals,  while  the  tropics 
appear  not  to  have  been  insufferably  torrid.  At- 
mospheric conditions  not  now  existing,  or  the 
peculiar  thermal  state  of  the  interior  of  the  earth 
at  that  time,  may  have  been  such  as  to  account 
for  the  world's  climatic  conditions  when  man  ap- 
peared. 

And  since  geological  science  assures  us  that 
species  are  constantly  diminishing,  we  may  infer 


266  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

that  there  was  then  a  larger  variety  of  birds  than 
now,  and  that  songs  filled  the  air  whose  like  we 
now  never  hear.  There  was  then,  too,  a  larger 
variety  of  other  animals  than  the  world  since  has 
known. 

Also  we  have  ample  scientific  grounds  for  the 
inference  that  there  were  territories  on  the  earth 
where  the  climate  was  perfectly  fitted,  as  were  all 
other  environments,  for  the  comfort  and  happi- 
ness of  man  without  resort  to  artificial  covering 
or  shelter;  and  such,  we  may  suppose,  was  the 
garden  of  Eden  (Gen.  iii.  7). 

Allowing  a  rational  play  of  the  imagination, 
and  at  the  same  time  maintaining  strict  loyalty 
to  the  Scriptures,  we  follow  this  Logos,  the  Christ, 
as  in  solitariness  he  moved  among  the  scenes 
of  Eden  on  the  day  of  man's  creation,  as  more 
than  once  during  his  incarnation  in  Judea  he  went 
alone  among  the  mountains,  on  the  sea,  and  in 
the  garden  of  Gethsemane. 

The  birds  were  there  and  the  beasts  of  the  field 
were  there ;  but  among  all  the  animals  surround- 
ing him  there  was  none  that  could  dress  and  till 
the  soil ;  none  that  could  study  and  appreciate 
the  works  of  the  Creator,  or  that  could  worship 
and  commune  with  God. 

It  is  not  an  extravagant  conjecture  that  Christ, 
while  walking  in  the  garden,  felt  in  that  lone- 
someness  a  desire  for  the  companionship  of  some 


CHRIST  THE  CREATOR  267 

being  like  himself  (John  vii.  24).  Nor  is  it  an 
unreasonable  conjecture  that  in  the  quiet  of  Eden 
these  words  were  spoken,  as  if  Christ  were  talk- 
ing to  himself  or  to  the  other  two  selves :  "  Let 
us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness  " 
(Gen.  i.  26,  27). 

And  could  not  Christ,  who  in  Judea  changed 
water  into  wine,  raised  from  the  dead  the  widow's 
son,  and  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  and  his  own 
friend  Lazarus ;  could  not  he  who  gave  sight  to 
the  blind  and  hearing  to  the  deaf,  who  cleansed 
lepers,  fed  multitudes  with  a  handful  of  food ; 
could  not  he  who  before  his  incarnation  made 
worlds  and  filled  the  earth  with  animal  and  vege- 
table life,  and  who  to-day  is  lifting  the  sin-cursed 
nations  into  his  marvelous  light ;  could  not  he 
create  a  companion  for  himself?  No  Christian 
believer  can  doubt  his  ability.  The  only  ques- 
tion would  be  one  of  disposition. 

Precisely  how  Christ  proceeded  to  form  the 
man,  the  Bible  does  not  say.  Therefore  in  this 
silence  of  the  Scriptures,  and  in  the  midst  of  the 
dead  silence  of  naturalism,  we  offer  two  conjec- 
tures, and  the  first  is  this  :  Christ  took  plastic  clay 
in  his  hands,  as  he  did  afterward  in  healing  a 
blind  man ;  he  molded  it  until  shaped  into  his 
own  image,  the  image  seen  by  the  patriarchs,  and 
then  said  to  the  clay,  "  Become  flesh ! "  and  it  be- 
came flesh. 


268  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

If  we  should  insist  that  man  was  thus  formed, 
and  that  this  change  from  non-living  to  living 
matter  was  effected  by  a  word  of  command,  nat- 
uralism can  interpose  no  scientific  objection. 

Here  was  the  shaping  of  matter  into  a  marvel- 
ous structure;  but  it  was  wrought  by  an  intelli- 
gent author,  whose  intelligence  is  greater  than  that 
of  the  thing  created.  Here  was  a  chemical  change 
— clay  to  flesh  ;  but  it  was  an  instantaneous  change. 
Here  was  non-living  matter  becoming  living;  but 
the  non-living  became  living  by  the  touch  of  a 
living  being. 

In  all  this  there  is  not  a  law  of  science  or  phi- 
losophy that  would  be  violated  by  such  a  creation, 
provided  there  is  a  supernatural  Being,  and,  still 
further,  provided  supernatural  interposition  in  the 
scheme  of  creation  is  possible.  And  in  this  con- 
nection no  one  can  fail  to  see  a  profound  signifi- 
cance in  the  words : 

"  And  the  Eternal  formed  man  of  the  dust  of 
the  soil"  (Gen.  ii.  7).  High  as  may  be  our  ce- 
lestial origin  and  parentage,  we  are  indebted  to 
an  earthly  mother.  We  are  of  the  earth,  earthy. 
"Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it 
was:  and  the  spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who 
gave  it"  (Eccles.  xii.  7),  is  the  inscription  over 
the  entrance  of  all  our  cemeteries. 

Nor  should  the  fact  be  overlooked  that  when 
the   anatomical  chemist,  with  his  many  modern 


CHRIST   THE  CREATOR  269 

instruments  and  appliances,  analyzes  the  human 
body  he  discovers  in  it  nothing  except  what  is 
found  in  the  dust  beneath  his  feet.  And  the 
geologist,  taking  the  body  of  man  where  the 
physiologist  finds  it,  in  harmony  with  the  great 
laws  of  historic  continuity,  carries  it  back  to  the 
soil,  and  then  to  the  lower  or  foundation  strata 
of  the  earth.  And  even  the  naturalistic  scientist 
is  compelled  to  make  the  confession  that  "  from 
those  lower  strata  of  the  earth  really  have  come 
the  molecular  constituents  of  the  human  body." 

The  psalmist  of  Israel,  anticipating  this  recent 
scientific  announcement,  exclaims,  "  Marvelous 
are  thy  works ;  and  that  my  soul  knoweth  right 
well.  My  substance  was  not  hid  from  thee,  when 
I  was  made  in  secret,  and  curiously  wrought  in 
the  lowest  parts  of  the  earth.  Thine  eyes  did  see 
my  substance,  yet  being  unperfect ;  and  in  thy 
book  all  my  members  were  written,  which  in 
continuance  were  fashioned,  when  as  yet  there 
was  none  of  them  "  (Ps.  cxxxix.  14-16). 

When,  therefore,  the  skeptic  sneers  at  what  he 
calls  the  "  mud  man  "  of  the  Bible,  he  merely  is 
making  a  sort  of  grim  sport  at  his  own  expense ; 
and  in  that  sport  we  well  may  leave  him. 

But  there  is  one  other  conjecture  as  to  the 
method  of  man's  creation  that  is  not  out  of  har- 
mony with  the  Bible  record,  to  which  we  may  also 
call  attention.     This  second  conjecture  supposes 


270  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

that  Christ  made  man,  not  by  molding  him  from 
a  mass  of  lifeless  clay,  but  by  the  agency  of  bio- 
plasm. That  is,  he  converted  a  bit  of  non-living 
matter  into  a  living  bioplast,  like  those  that  now 
are  building  every  part  of  the  human  organism : 
bioplasts  that  can  take  non-living  matter  and  con- 
vert it  into  living  tissue ;  bioplasts  that  are  so 
small  in  size  that  six  of  them  can  lie  side  by  side 
across  the  edge  of  the  sharpest  razor,  their  mea- 
surement being  one  sixth  of  a  thousandth  of  an 
inch.  Then  he  created  another  bioplast,  then 
another,  then  a  million,  then  a  billion,  and  massed 
them.  And  with  this  mass  of  bioplasm  by  a 
word  or  a  touch  he  shaped  the  man  perfectly,  se- 
curing a  "  coordination  of  parts,"  with  every  phys- 
ical tissue  of  that  body  instinct  with  life. 

Now  while  creation  by  spontaneous  gener- 
ation and  evolution  by  natural  selection  or  by  the 
survival  of  the  fittest,  are  confronted  with  insur- 
mountable scientific  difficulties,  such  a  creation  at 
the  hands  of  Christ  as  we  have  just  supposed  is 
antagonized  by  nothing  that  is  established  in  the 
whole  realm  of  approved  science  and  philosophy, 
provided  that  the  possibility  of  divine  interposi- 
tion is  granted.  But  Darwin  and  Agassiz  and 
Dana  and  Beal  and  Lotze,  and  a  multitude  of 
other  distinguished  scientists,  already  have  de- 
cided that  such  interposition  not  only  is  possible, 
but  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  account  for 


CHRIST  THE  CREATOR  271 

the  existence  and  arrangement  of  things,  and  for 
the  presence  of  life  and  of  man  on  the  earth. 

Thus  far  we  have  been  speaking  solely  of  the 
physical  organism  of  man,  of  which  we  can  say  it 
was  the  highest  and  noblest  type  of  creation  to 
be  found  in  the  material  universe.  That  first 
man  was  no  monkey,  nor  baboon,  nor  one  of  their 
descendants.  He  had  the  physical  powers  of  a 
perfect  man  without  defect  or  deformity  ;  he  was 
kingly  and  handsome,  for  he  was  made  in  the 
image  of  God — the  image  of  the  prehistoric  Christ. 
A  more  complete  type  of  physical  man  never  has 
appeared  on  the  earth.  In  this  respect,  as  the 
fathers  used  to  say,  "  Aristotle  was  but  the  rub- 
bish of  Adam." 

But  though  perfect  in  form  and  in  innocence, 
this  first  man  was  without  character  and  without 
immortality  ;  for  character  is  an  acquirement,  and 
immortality  is  an  endowment. 

We  may  conjecture  that,  like  a  new-born  in- 
fant, Adam  after  his  creation  slept  for  a  while  in 
the  garden.  And  this  first  sleep  might  have 
been  his  last,  and  the  human  race  would  have 
been  unknown  on  the  earth,  but  for  other  inter- 
positions that  were  attended  with  grave  responsi- 
bilities. 

We  are  told  that  when  Caesar  advanced  to  the 
shores  of  the  Rubicon  he  paused,  and,  after  re- 
volving in  his  mind  during  the   night  the  perils 


S 


272  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

and  responsibilities  that  confronted  him,  ex- 
claimed, "  The  die  is  cast."  He  crossed  the  river, 
the  invader  of  Italy. 

We  are  told  that  the  Lord  Jesus  so  deeply  was 
impressed  with  what  was  involved  in  the  choos- 
ing of  the  twelve  apostles  that,  alone  among  the 
mountains,  he  spent  the  whole  previous  night  in 
prayer  (Luke  vi.   12). 

We  are  told  that  before  he  conferred  the  power 
of  speech  upon  the  man  whose  tongue  was  tied 
he  paused,  looked  up  to  heaven,  and  sighed  (Mark 
vii.  34).  An  eminent  English  divine  has  drawn  a 
powerful  picture  of  Christ  praying  and  sighing  in 
view  of  the  responsibility  that  would  come  to  this 
hitherto  speechless  man  when  his  tongue  was  free 
to  pray  or  curse,  to  wound  or  heal.  Therefore 
we  may  well  suppose,  after  Christ  had  fashioned 
the  man  in  the  garden  and  before  waking  him  to 
consciousness,  or  at  least  before  conferring  upon 
him  the  power  of  an  endless  life,  that  he  paused. 
Here  was  an  act  the  responsibility  and  scope  of 
which  eternity  alone  could  measure. 

Christ  felt  this  in  all  its  fullness  and  awfulness. 
With  a  divine  forecast  he  saw  everything  that 
would  be  involved  in  the  building  of  character 
and  in  the  gift  of  a  deathless  spirit.  It  was  more 
than  a  Rubicon  that  was  to  be  crossed.  In  com- 
parison, the  choice  of  the  Twelve  and  the  giving 
of  speech  to  silent  lips  were  nothing.     One  word 


CHRIST   THE   CREATOR  273 

would  make  of  that  first  man  a  free  moral  agent 
of  so  great  power  that  he  could  defy  the  Deity, 
live  forever,  and  in  majesty  and  excellence,  if  it 
were  his  choice,  he  could  rise  above  all  the  hier- 
archies of  the  angels.  Shall  Christ  complete  the 
work  and  confer  these  stupendous  endowments? 

He  knew  that  the  character  of  the  first  man 
could  not  be  developed  without  the  trial  of  temp- 
tation. The  test  of  the  tree  in  the  garden,  or 
some  other  temptation,  must  be  presented.  He 
foresaw  the  disobedience  and  the  fall ;  he  foresaw 
the  bloody  hand  of  Cain,  the  violence  that  was  to 
fill  the  earth,  one  family  only  remaining  to  wor- 
ship God.  He  foresaw  the  deluge  that  was  to 
sweep  all  other  families  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 
He  foresaw  the  repeopling  of  the  world,  the  re- 
turn to  it  of  sin  and  iniquity.  The  bloody  wars 
among  the  nations,  the  idolatry,  wretchedness, 
drunkenness,  ignorance,  crimes,  vices,  and  mis- 
eries of  the  human  family  from  first  to  last  passed 
in  review. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  foresaw  the  devout 
Abel,  the  blameless  Seth,  Enoch,  who  walked 
with  God,  and  the  righteous  Noah.  He  foresaw 
the  efforts  of  the  other  patriarchs  to  please  God, 
the  faithfulness  of  Abraham,  the  purity  of  Joseph, 
the  trustfulness  of  Job,  the  greatness  and  gentle- 
ness of  Moses.  He  foreheard  the  confessions 
and  songs  of  David  and  the  prayers  of  Daniel. 


274  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

There  passed  before  his  vision  the  fearless  and 
noble  John  the  Baptist,  and  the  disciple  of  the 
same  name  who  is  known  as  the  beloved,  and  the 
other  apostles,  and  Stephen  and  Paul  and  the 
martyrs  and  reformers.  Before  his  eye  passed  in 
review  the  holy  men  and  women  in  all  the  walks 
of  life,  in  all  countries  and  in  all  ages.  He  fore- 
saw the  people  who  now  bear  his  name,  and  who 
in  tenderness  and  love  commemorate  in  every 
part  of  the  world  his  death  and  sufferings.  Shall 
he,  therefore,  complete  this  work  and  send  the 
human  family  onward  across  the  continents  to 
its  mission  of  combined  degradation  and  glory  ? 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  primal  responsibility 
of  what  might  happen  to  man  was  Christ's.  The 
pleasure  that  would  come  to  him  from  human 
companionship  was  offset  in  his  vision  by  the 
grief  that  would  come  on  account  of  man's  dis- 
obedience. The  one  who  creates  and  endows 
with  endless  life  also  must  make  provision  for  all 
consequences  and  contingencies.  The  fall  and 
degradation  of  the  race  Christ  knew  would  neces- 
sitate a  scheme  of  redemption.  But  redemption 
requires  sacrifice  in  obedience  to  the  universal  law 
that  one  thing  lives  by  the  death  of  other  things. 
Christ  knew  all  this.  In  equity  he,  and  not 
another,  must  face  the  sacrifice.  The  saving  of 
any  part  of  the  human  race  meant  for  Christ, 
therefore,  a  miraculous  conception ;  a  life  of  hu- 


CHRIST   THE   CREATOR  275 

miliation,  suffering,  and  death.  What  complex 
and  startling  visions  passed  before  him :  the 
hunger,  the  thirst,  the  betrayal,  the  arrest,  the 
denial,  the  trial,  the  CROSS! 

He  foresaw  it  all  there  in  the  garden  of  Eden 
as  clearly  as  if  the  scenes  already  were  enacting, 
and  he  felt  the  agony  as  keenly  as  when  the  nails 
were  driving  into  his  hands  and  feet  on  Golgotha. 

Then  for  a  moment  the  vision  of  Eden  and  of 
Jerusalem  and  of  the  mountains  and  seas  of  Gali- 
lee, and  of  the  whole  earth,  gave  place  to  other 
scenes  that  are  to  be  when  the  earth  is  no  more. 
Then  the  almost  oppressive  stillness  of  the  garden 
seemed  as  if  broken,  and  Christ  foreheard  "  the 
voices  of  harpers  harping  with  their  harps,"  and 
he  foreheard  songs  so  majestic  that  the  mountains 
trembled.  It  was  as  the  voice  of  many  waters 
and  as  the  voice  of  mighty  thunderings,  and  the 
wonderful  chorus  came  as  from  the  lips  of  re- 
deemed multitudes  so  vast  that  they  could  not 
be  numbered.  And  this  was  their  song:  "  Alle- 
luia!" "  Great  and  marvelous  are  thy  works." 
'*'  And  the  seventh  angel  sounded  ;  and  there  were 
great  voices  in  heaven,  saying,  The  kingdoms  of 
this  world  are  become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord, 
and  of  his  Christ ;  and  he  shall  reign  for  ever  and 
ever."      (Rev.  xv.  3;  xi.  15.) 

The  song  ceased.  Adam  was  not  yet  fully  en- 
dowed with  all  that  constitutes  manhood.      Shall 


276  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

the  work  be  completed  ?  Shall  the  earth  have  its 
king  ?  Shall  all  the  prophecies  in  nature,  extend- 
ing from  the  earliest  crystal,  lichen,  and  moss  to 
the  monster  mammals,  be  fulfilled?  Shall  the 
Rubicon  be  passed  ?  Shall  the  apostles  be  chosen  ? 
Shall  the  motionless  lips  be  endowed  with  speech  ? 
Shall  man  live  forever? 

As  Elijah  bowed  over  the  body  of  the  dead 
child  of  the  Zidonian  widow,  so  Christ  stooped 
down  and  breathed  into  the  nostrils  of  this  fresh- 
formed  body  of  Adam,  and  there  began  a  life  as 
deathless  as  that  of  God  himself.  This  miracle 
of  bestowing  endless  life  was  wrought  mouth  to 
mouth,  as  if  Christ  had  designed  to  wake  man 
to  this  higher  consciousness  with  a  kiss  on 
his  lips.  And  all  history  shows  that  with  the 
tenderness  of  that  act  Christ  ever  since  has  fol- 
lowed the  children  of  men. 

Then,  as  we  may  suppose,  Christ  raised  him- 
self, took  in  his  own  the  hand  of  this  first  man, 
and  said,  "  Adam,  arise  and  stand  upon  thy  feet ! " 
Adam  arose  and  looked  into  the  face  of  Christ. 
They  were  companions,  the  Creator  and  his  first 
disciple  and  friend. 

III.    CREATION    OF    WOMAN 

Adam  was  created,  and  endowed  with  endless 
life,  but  for  him  there  was  no  helpmeet.     There 


CHRIST   THE   CREATOR  277 

could  be  no  family,  or,  as  it  sometimes  is  called, 
no  social  trinity  of  father,  mother,  and  child,  un- 
less there  were  a  woman.  Therefore  a  new  prob- 
lem, no  less  perplexing  than  the  creation  of  Adam, 
is  presented. 

In  the  presence  of  this  problem,  after  fifty  years 
of  lispings,  with  occasional  boastings,  naturalism 
to-day,  with  her  finger  on  her  lips,  is  silent.  In 
brief,  the  following  is  the  difficulty  presented : 
there  can  be  no  first  child  without  a  woman; 
there  can  be  no  first  woman  unless  she  grows 
from  a  child  or  at  the  outset  is  full  formed.  But 
the  first  female  child  or  the  first  full-grown  woman 
could  not  have  made  herself.  The  man  could 
not  have  made  her.  There  is  not  a  shred  of  evi- 
dence of  any  kind  that  by  natural  processes  she 
could  have  had  a  beginning  in  spontaneous  gen- 
eration or  have  been  evolved  from  any  of  the 
lower  orders  or  from  man. 

We  defy  the  whole  world  of  naturalistic  scien- 
tists to  throw  a  solitary  ray  of  light  upon  the  cre- 
ation of  the  first  woman,  apart  from  divine  and 
miraculous  interposition. 

We  are  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  the 
order  of  creation  as  given  in  the  Bible  has  been 
called  in  question ;  that  is,  several  morphologists 
have  taken  exception  to  the  Mosaic  account,  on 
the  ground  that  in  order  of  time  the  creation  of 
the  male  ought  not  to  have  preceded  that  of  the 
female. 


278  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

While  the  order  as  given  in  the  Bible  seems 
to  have  some  justification  owing  to  the  superiority 
of  the  male,  both  among  men  and  among  many 
of  the  higher  animals,  yet  from  a  morphological 
point  of  view  the  female  seems  to  be  the  far  more 
important  and  the  more  ancient ;  and  therefore 
it  is  said  that  the  Bible  should  have  reported  that 
the  rib  was  taken  from  Eve  instead  of  from  Adam. 

Professor  Ward  remarks  upon  this  at  some 
length  in  his  "  Psychic  Factors,"  and  argues  that 
"  the  female  is  the  race,  the  main  central  stock, 
while  the  male  is  but  secondary  and  accessory." 

For  obvious  reasons  we  enter  into  no  contro- 
versy, at  least  on  scientific  grounds,  with  our 
morphologistic  friends.  We  leave  the  women  of 
the  race  a  clear  field  to  defend  the  priority  rights 
and  privileges  to  which,  according  to  the  fore- 
going view,  they  are  entitled.  But  we  are  com- 
pelled to  say  that,  all  things  considered,  the  sci- 
entific reasons  thus  far  adduced  are  not  sufficient 
to  outweigh  the  revelations  of  that  Book  that  has 
challenged  the  admiration  of  the  world. 

We  therefore  turn  again  to  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
selecting  passages  from  the  first  and  second  chap- 
ters of  Genesis,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  second 
*  chapter  is  a  restatement  of  the  first,  a  form  of 
speech  quite  common  in  Hebrew  composition. 
We  read :  "  These  are  the  generations  of  the 
heavens  and  the   earth  on  their   being  created. 


CHRIST   THE   CREATOR  279 

And  not  a  plant  of  the  field  was  yet  in  the  land, 
and  not  an  herb  of  the  field  yet  grew,  and  there 
was  no  man  to  till  the  ground.  And  a  mist  went 
up  from  the  land,  and  watered  the  whole  face  of 
the  soil.  And  the  Eternal  formed  the  man  of 
the  dust  from  the  soil,  and  breathed  into  his  nos- 
trils the  breath  of  life ;  and  man  became  a  living 
soul. 

"  And  the  Eternal  planted  a  garden  eastward 
in  Eden  ;  and  there  he  put  the  man  whom  he  had 
formed.  And  out  of  the  ground  made  the  Eter- 
nal to  grow  every  tree  that  is  pleasant  to  the  sight, 
and  good  for  food.  .  .  .  And  the  Eternal  took  the 
man,  and  put  him  into  the  garden  of  Eden  to 
dress  it  and  to  keep  it.  .  .  . 

"  And  the  Eternal  said,  It  is  not  good  that  the 
man  should  be  alone ;  I  will  make  him  a  help 
meet  for  him.  And  the  Eternal  formed  out  of 
the  soil  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl 
of  the  skies.  .  .  .  And  the  man  gave  names  to  all 
cattle,  and  to  the  fowl  of  the  skies,  and  to  every 
beast  of  the  field ;  and  for  the  man  there  was  not 
found  a  help  meet  for  him. 

"  And  the  Eternal  caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall 
upon  the  man,  and  he  slept ;  and  he  took  one  of 
his  ribs,  and  closed  up  the  flesh  instead  thereof. 
And  the  Eternal  built  the  rib  which  he  had  taken 
from  the  man  into  a  woman,  and  brought  her 
unto  the  man.      And  the  man  said,  This  is  now 


v/ 


280  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

bone  of  my  bone,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh :  she  shall 
be  called  Woman,  because  she  was  taken  out  of  a 
man. 

"  Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and 
his  mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife :  and 
they  shall  be  one  flesh.  And  they  were  both 
naked,  the  man  and  his  wife,  and  were  not 
ashamed." 

This  Eve  of  the  Bible,  like  the  Eve  of  archaeo- 
logical science,  was  no  female  baboon.  A  woman 
of  greater  or  more  striking  perfection  of  form  or 
features  no  man  ever  has  looked  on.  In  history 
and  in  rank  she  was  the  first  of  her  sex,  queenly 
and  beautiful ;  but  as  yet  her  character  was  un- 
formed. "'  Character  in  her  case,  as  in  that  of 
Adam,  could  not  be  conferred ;  it  must  be  devel- 
oped through  temptation  and  trial.  In  all  other 
respects  Eve  was  immaculate,  with  the  expression 
of  an  angel  and  the  innocence  of  a  child. 

But  some  one  is  on  the  point  of  saying,  this 
story  of  the  "  rib  "  is  what  casts  discredit  on  the 
entire  record.  It  savors  too  much  of  myth  for 
credence,  and  is  a  descent  from  the  dignity  of 
the  rest  of  the  narrative.  If  the  woman  only  had 
been  made  of  clay,  or  of  bioplasm,  the  story  more 
easily  could  be  believed. 

This  criticism  is  natural.  But  according  to  the 
rules  by  which  we  promised  to  be  governed,  the 
narrative  must  be  followed  in  its  literalness.     To 


CHRIST   THE   CREATOR  281 

treat  the  account  of  man's  creation  as  literal,  and 
that  of  the  woman  as  pictorial  or  poetical,  would 
be  one  of  the  rankest  violations  possible  of  the 
fundamental  rules  of  interpretation.  The  make- 
shift view  likewise  that  takes  refuge  under  the 
scientific  phrase,  "  ineffable  cleavage,"  is  as  mis- 
taken a  method  of  Bible  exegesis  as  well  can  be 
imagined. 

No  one  doubts  that  the  Creator  could  have 
made  woman  in  some  other  way  as  well  as  in  the 
way  recorded.  He  could  have  made  her  from  a 
cloud  in  the  atmosphere,  or  out  of  foam  from 
the  sea,  or,  for  that  matter,  even  from  a  piece  of 
mountain  granite,  or  in  the  same  way  as  he  made 
Adam.  Or  he  could  have  formed  Eve  first,  or  have 
reversed  the  Bible  process  and  have  taken  Adam 
out  of  Eve.  But  the  trouble  is  that  none  of  these 
possible  methods  has  any  scientific  evidence,  nor 
do  any  of  them  conform  to  the  Bible  account, 
and  therefore  they  must  be  rejected. 

For  a  moment  let  us  examine  the  details  of 
this  remarkable  Bible  narrative.  Heroic  treat- 
ment was  the  one  best  known  to  the  ancients. 
They  would  have  had  the  gods  bind  Adam  on  a 
rack,  and  then  have  had  a  bone  wrenched  from 
his  side  with  such  force  that  the  man's  outcry  of 
pain  could  have  been  heard  through  all  the  groves 
and  among  all  the  hills  of  Paradise.  But  Christ 
was  a  skilled  surgeon,  and  afterward  was  known 


v/ 


282  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

as  the  great  Physician  ;  his  method  and  treatment, 
therefore,  would  be  wise. 

In  the  Public  Garden  of  Boston  is  an  expensive 
granite  monument,  commemorative  of  the  dis- 
covery in  that  city  of  ether  as  an  agency  for  re- 
lieving pain  during  surgical  operations.  In  the 
creation  of  the  first  woman  is  anticipated  this 
most  merciful  discovery  of  modern  medical  sci- 
ence. 

Christ  "  caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall  upon  the 
man,"  as  the  record  goes  on  to  say ;  or,  employing 
medical  phraseology,  the  man  was  "  etherized." 
The  words  translated  "deep  sleep"  mean  entire 
unconsciousness.  The  divine  One  then  removed 
some  part  of  the  flesh  and  bone  of  the  man  near  the 
breast,  closing  up  the  place  thereof  with  other 
flesh,  and  out  of  that  flesh,  bone,  and  blood  of 
Adam,  with  the  bioplasts  still  alive  in  it  and  upon 
it,  he  made  the  woman,  and  endowed  her,  as  he 
did  Adam,  with  endless  life.  And  he  who  a  few 
thousand  years  later  adorned  with  his  presence  a 
marriage  ceremony,  and  beautified  it  with  his 
first  miracle,  wrought  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  now 
in  the  garden  of  Eden  pronounced  the  union  of 
these  two  souls  in  a  marriage  ceremony,  brief  and 
beautiful,  which  in  the  original  text  reads  thus: 
"  And  he  builded  up  the  woman  and  brought  her 
to  the  man."  Here  was  the  birth  of  society. 
Unity  of  blood  literally  is  maintained.      Here  is 


CHRIST  THE  CREATOR  283 

the  "  real  presence  "  and  a  divine  succession  in 
the  human  family.  By  taking  the  woman  almost 
from  the  heart  of  man,  Christ  in  no  other  way  so 
well  could  illustrate  and  sanction  the  intended  and 
ordained  union  between  husband  and  wife — a 
union  so  well  established  in  the  nature  of  things 
that  a  departure  from  it  always  is  found  destruc- 
tive of  the  highest  individual  and  national  pros- 
perity. And  thus  this  criticized  story  of  the 
"  rib  "  is  luminous  and  beautiful,  even  radiant  as 
compared  with  the  lispings  and  stammerings  of 
naturalism. 

We  may  listen  at  this  point  for  a  moment  to 
the  tinkling  sounds  and  symbols  uttered  by  those 
who  claim  to  have  the  knowledge  of  nearly  all 
things  at  their  fingers'  ends. 

The  following  is  Herbert  Spencer's  account  of 
the  building  of  our  universe: 

"  The  different  groupings  of  units,  and  the 
combination  of  the  unlike  groups,  each  with  its 
own  kind  and  each  with  other  kinds,  have  pro- 
duced the  kinds  of  matter  we  call  elementary." 

Evidence,  Mr.  Spencer!  There  is  not  a  par- 
ticle of  evidence  for  what  you  say,  and  your 
meaning  is  distressingly  unclear  to  common 
people. 

This  distinguished  philosopher  then  proceeds 
to  show  how  organic  life,  including  man  and 
woman,  can  come  from  inorganic  materials ; 


284  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

"  Certain  of  the  ethereal  waves  falling  upon 
them"  (referring  to  carbonic  acid,  water,  and 
ammonia),  "  there  results  a  detachment  of  some 
of  the  combined  atoms,  and  a  union  of  the  rest. 
And  the  conclusion  suggested  is  that  the  induced 
vibrations  among  the  various  atoms,  as  at  first 
arranged,  are  so  incongruous  as  to  produce  in- 
stability, and  to  give  collateral  affinities  the  power 
to  work  a  rearrangement,  which,  though  less  stable 
under  other  conditions,  is  more  stable  in  the  pres- 
ence of  these  particular  undulations." 

With  calm  assurance  Mr.  Spencer  should  have 
added  these  words  :  "  Some  day  human  ingenuity 
mechanically  will  induce  vibrations  among  the 
various  atoms,  produce  instability,  work  a  rear- 
rangement, build  a  world,  and  people  it  with  liv- 
ing creatures." 

There  is  just  as  much  evidence  for  one  of  these 
statements  as  for  the  other;  and  neither  one  nor 
the  other  by  a  scientific  mind  is  worth  a  second 
reading. 

This  entire  paragraph  of  Mr.  Spencer  reminds 
one  of  the  following  words  of  Plutarch,  who  stands 
among  the  earliest  naturalists  whose  words  have 
been  preserved : 

"  The  insecable  bodies  or  atoms,  by  a  wild  and 
fortuitous  motion,  without  any  governing  power, 
incessantly  and  swiftly  were  hurried  one  against 
another,  many  bodies  being  jumbled   together; 


CHRIST   THE  CREATOR  285 

upon  this  account  they  have  a  diversity  in  their 
figures  and  magnitude.  After  this  manner  the 
principal  parts  of  the  earth  were  constituted." 

Does  this  language  call  forth  a  smile  ?  But  the 
statement  is  as  clear,  at  least  as  satisfactory,  as 
anything  spoken  during  the  last  forty  years  by 
naturalists  concerning  the  origin  of  things. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  excessive  wisdom  of 
Colonel  Robert  Ingersoll,  we  quote  the  following 
from  his  book  entitled  "  Some  of  the  Mistakes  of 
Moses  " : 

"  The  monar  is  said  to  be  the  simplest  form  of 
animal  life  that  has  yet  been  found.  It  has  been 
described  as  an  organism  without  organs.  It  is 
a  kind  of  structureless  structure,  a  little  mass  of 
transparent  jelly  that  can  flatten  itself  out,  and 
can  expand  and  contract  around  its  food.  It  can 
feed  without  a  mouth,  digest  without  a  stomach, 
walk  without  feet,  and  reproduce  itself  by  simple 
division." 

Aftergivingthe  foregoing  account  of  the  monar, 
which  thing  he  borrowed  from  Dr.  Haeckel, — at 
least  it  unmistakably  has  Haeckel's  earmarks  on 
it, — he  continues  thus  : 

"  By  taking  this  monar  as  the  commencement 
of  animal  life,  or  rather  as  the  first  animal,  it  is 
easy  to  follow  the  development  of  the  organic 
structure  through  all  the  forms  of  life  to  man 
himself." 


286  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Easy!  What  does  Mr.  Ingersoll  mean?  Has 
he  ever  followed  this  development?  We  answer 
for  him  that  he  never  so  much  as  has  tried  to  fol- 
low it  or  he  would  not  talk  as  he  does,  if  honest 
and  truthful.  Or  has  he  ever  asked  this  question, 
Whence  came  the  monar?  He  very  well  knows 
that  such  a  wonderful  thing  as  the  monar  is  not 
a  product  of  chance.  And  for  any  one  to  invent 
and  construct  a  monar,  an  organism  without 
organs,  a  structureless  structure,  a  thing  that 
feeds  without  a  mouth,  digests  without  a  stomach, 
walks  without  feet,  reproduces  itself  at  will,  makes 
animals  and  man  and  a  whole  race  of  men  and 
women,  is  one  of  the  most  marvelous  and  stupen- 
dous enterprises  imaginable.  The  monar  is  a  God, 
or  a  God  made  it.  And  this  talkative  man  must 
know,  if  he  ever  has  given  one  hour's  serious 
thought  to  the  subject,  that  a  Being  who  can 
create  such  a  self-propagating,  prolific,  all-pro- 
ducing monar,  with  the  same  effort  and  in  the 
same  time  could  make  a  universe. 

And  in  the  light  of  modern  science,  Mr.  Inger- 
soll ought  to  know  that  his  statement  that  "  by 
taking  this  monar  as  the  commencement  it  is 
easy  to  follow  the  development  of  the  organic 
structure  through  all  the  forms  of  life  to  man  him- 
self," is  a  stupendous  falsehood,  as  well  as  an  in- 
sult to  modern  intelligence. 

We  do  not  blame  this  eloquent  lawyer  for  his 


CHRIST  THE  CREATOR  287 

masterly  ignorance,  but  we  condemn  him  for  his 
conceit  and  for  his  careless  or  intentional  misrep- 
resentation of  facts. 

By  the  side  of  Ingersoll's  words  let  us  place 
those  of  the  late  J.  Clerk  Maxwell,  one  of  the 
most  distinguished  mathematical  physicists  in  the 
history  of  science,  professor  of  experimental  phys- 
ics in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  England,  of 
whom  Professor  Huxley  says,  "  He  is  a  philoso- 
pher as  remarkable  for  the  subtlety  of  his  intel- 
lect as  for  his  vast  knowledge." 

After  noting  by  the  means  of  the  subtlest 
mathematical  processes  that  physical  molecules 
of  various  kinds  have  identically  the  same  vibra- 
tions, and  that  while  untold  variations  are  possi- 
ble, yet  none  of  them  ever  has  arisen  in  any  of 
the  processes  of  nature,  he  proceeds  thus : 

"  The  formation  of  the  molecule  is,  therefore, 
an  event  not  belonging  to  that  order  of  nature 
under  which  we  live.  It  is  an  operation  of  a  kind 
which  is  not,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  going  on  on 
earth  or  in  the  sun  or  the  stars  either  now  or 
since  these  bodies  began  to  be  formed.   .   .   . 

"  Science  is  incompetent  to  reason  upon  the 
creation  of  matter  itself  out  of  nothing.  We 
have  reached  the  utmost  limit  of  our  thinking 
faculties  when  we  have  admitted  that,  because 
matter  cannot  be  eternal  and  self-existent,  it 
must  have  been  created." 


288  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Or  compare  the  assurance  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  with 
the  words  of  Professor  Tyndall  in  a  recent  num- 
ber of  the  "Fortnightly  Review":  "If  asked 
whether  science  has  solved  or  is  likely  in  one  day 
to  solve  the  problem  of  the  universe,  I  must  shake 
my  head  in  doubt.  Behind  and  above  and  around 
us  the  real  mystery  of  the  universe  lies  unsolved, 
and,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned,  is  incapable  of 
solution." 

The  following  specimen  of  what  Mr.  Stead,  in 
a  late  number  of  the  "  Review  of  Reviews,"  calls 
"  scientific  tom-tom,"  is  found  in  Dr.  Haeckel's 
recently  published  "  Monism,"  and  probably  for 
the  next  half-century  it  will  be  regarded  as  the 
expiring  gasp  of  atheistic  naturalism :  "  The  real 
maker  of  the  organic  world  is  in  all  probability  an 
atom  of  carbon,  a  tetrahedron  made  up  of  four 
primitive  atoms.  The  human  soul  is  only  the 
sum  of  these  physiological  functions,  whose  ele- 
mentary organs  are  constituted  by  the  microscopic 
ganglion-cells  of  our  brain ;  in  this  respect  it  is 
identical  with  the  soul  of  the  lowest  single-celled 
infusoria.  .  .  .  Consciousness  is  a  mechanical 
work  of  the  ganglion-cells,  and  as  such  must  be 
carried  back  to  chemical  and  physical  events  in 
the  plasma  of  those  cells." 

"  That  which  is  true  is  plain,"  say  the  Germans. 
Tested  by  this  rule,  what  must  be  one's  judgment 
of  the  foregoing  explanations   of   the  origin   of 


CHRIST  THE  CREATOR  289 

things,  and  indeed  of  much  of  the  talk  that  in  late 
years  has  been  passing  current  in  the  fields  of 
naturalistic  science  and  philosophy? 

The  picture  painted  by  the  rough  but  keen 
Thomas  Carlyle  does  not  misrepresent  what  nat- 
uralism has  come  to  in  its  vain  attempts  to  ac- 
count for  man  and  woman,  thought  and  con- 
science : 

"  Ah,  it  is  a  sad  and  terrible  thing  to  see  nigh 
a  whole  generation  of  men  and  women  professing 
to  be  cultivated  looking  around  in  a  purblind 
fashion,  and  finding  no  God  in  this  universe.  .  .  . 
And  this  is  what  we  have  got  to:  all  things 
from  frog-spawn ;  the  gospel  of  dirt  the  order  of 
the  day.  The  older  I  grow — and  I  now  stand 
upon  the  brink  of  eternity — the  more  comes  back 
to  me  the  sentence  in  the  catechism  which  I 
learned  when  a  child,  and  the  fuller  and  deeper 
its  meaning  becomes :  '  What  is  the  great  end  of 
man?  To  glorify  God  and  enjoy  him  forever.' 
No  gospel  of  dirt,  teaching  that  men  have  de- 
scended from  frogs  through  monkeys,  can  ever 
set  that  aside." 


CHAPTER   XIV 

Man 
i.  solitariness  of  man 

The  Bible  story  of  creation  naturally  suggests 
this  question :  Among  the  infinitude  of  visible 
worlds,  is  our  earth  the  only  one  that  is  the  abode 
of  man,  or  of  any  being  like  man  ? 

As  with  most  kindred  questions,  this  often  dis- 
cussed and  variously  answered  one  has  its  theo- 
logical or  scriptural  as  well  as  its  scientific  side. 

While  the  sacred  Scriptures  do  not  state  ex- 
plicitly that  the  earth  is  the  only  abode  of  man, 
or  of  rational,  ethical,  physical  beings  like  man, 
still,  after  making  a  critical  examination  and 
analysis  of  the  Bible,  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
ground  of  doubt  as  to  the  impression  it  must 
naturally  and  inevitably  leave  on  the  mind  of  the 
reader. 

The  Book  of  Genesis,  the  Book  of  Job,  the 
Psalms,  several  passages  in  the  prophets  and 
others  in  the  New  Testament  that  speak  of  the 
290 


SOLITARINESS  OF  MAN  291 

creation  of  the  earth  and  of  the  stars,  and  also 
passages  that  speak  of  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  atonement  and  of  the  number  and  character 
of  the  redeemed,  do  not  so  much  as  remotely  hint 
at  the  existence  of  any  humanity  except  that  in- 
cluded in  the  seed  of  Adam. 

The  thought  expressed  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  that  for  human  convenience  the  heavenly 
bodies  were  ordained  "  to  divide  the  day  from  the 
night,"  and  to  be  "  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and 
for  days,  and  for  years,"  is  the  thought  that  runs 
through  the  entire  volume. 

This  Bible  view  of  the  design  of  God  in  creat- 
ing the  universe  especially  for  man  generally 
prevailed  until  the  science  of  astronomy  began  to 
disclose  the  magnitude  of  the  heavenly  bodies  and 
the  extent  of  the  celestial  spaces.  It  was  in  con- 
sequence of  these  disclosures  that  the  earth  lost 
for  a  time  much  of  its  significance,  and  the  earlier 
Bible  view  met  with  such  pronounced  opposition 
that  serious  damage  threatened  the  whole  system 
of  theology.  Still  theology  is  so  much  a  part  of 
human  life  and  thought  that,  amid  all  the  discus- 
sions that  followed,  it  held  its  position,  adjusted 
itself  to  the  remarkable  discoveries  that  had  been 
made,  and  suffered  no  harm,  even  though  the  new 
theories  worked  themselves  into  quite  universal 
favor. 

Between  the  years  1800  and  1850  nearly  all 


292  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

scientific  men  maintained  the  opinion  that  the 
earth  is  only  a  speck  in  the  universe  and  that  a 
countless  number  of  worlds  in  the  astronomical 
heavens  are  peopled  with  beings  who,  like  man, 
have  physical  bodies,  consciousnesses,  and  con- 
sciences, some  of  whom  physically  and  mentally 
are  as  far  superior  to  man  as  the  planet  Jupiter  is 
larger  than  the  earth. 

Theologians  vied  with  scientists  and  philoso- 
phers in  the  advocacy  of  these  views,  contending 
that  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures  on  this  subject 
ought  not  to  be  urged  either  against  their  credi- 
bility or  against  the  conclusions  of  science. 

But,  as  is  well  known  to  those  who  are  familiar 
with  these  matters,  the  pendulum,  during  the  last 
twenty-five  years,  has  been  swinging  far  the  other 
way.  The  increased  power  of  the  telescope,  the 
erection  of  observatories  in  favorable  localities,  the 
science  of  spectrum  analysis,  by  which  the  chemi- 
cal composition  of  planets  and  stars  beyond  ques- 
tion is  made  known,  and  the  theory  of  an  essential 
unity  in  the  physical  universe,  together  with  rea- 
sonings from  analogy,  in  large  measure  are  re- 
sponsible for  this  change  of  view.  By  these  new 
appliances  it  has  been  ascertained  beyond  any 
reasonable  doubt  that  multitudes  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  are  not  and  never  have  been  inhabited  or 
inhabitable  by  any  form  of  life  resembling  that  of 
man. 


SOLITARINESS   OF  MAN  293 

Some  of  the  comets,  for  instance,  are  of  incon- 
ceivable magnitude,  but  they  are  known  to  be  un- 
inhabitable. The  sun,  though  the  largest  body  in 
our  planetary  system,  is  a  globe  of  flames.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  all  the  stars  that  twinkle  in 
the  midnight  heavens  ;  their  twinkling  is  the  flash- 
ing of  flames  that  leap  out  of  the  most  appalling 
conflagrations  imaginable. 

Under  recent  and  careful  scientific  inspection 
even  the  planets  of  our  solar  system  for  the  larger 
part  are  found  unfit  for  habitation.  Jupiter,  the 
grandest  of  them  all,  but  lately  has  passed  from 
a  condition  of  flames  to  its  present  nearly  red-hot 
state,  which  actually  or  measurably  is  the  case 
with  the  other  large  exterior  planets. 

Mars  is  still  thought  by  some  of  our  astrono- 
mers to  be  in  a  habitable  condition ;  and  specula- 
tive writers  of  vivid  imagination  every  now  and 
then  give  their  readers  glowing  accounts  of  what 
the  inhabitants  of  Mars  are  like  and  of  what  they 
are  doing. 

But  with  increased  facilities  for  making  obser- 
vations the  evidence  in  support  of  the  view  that 
Mars  is  inhabited  is  yearly  becoming  less  and  less 
satisfactory.  In  the  white  spots  at  the  poles  of 
that  planet  one  astronomer  sees  banks  of  snow 
and  ice,  another  only  masses  of  steam  and  cloud. 
In  certain  lines  on  its  surface  one  astronomer  sees 
a  system  of  artificially  constructed  canals,  another 


294  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

sees  belts  of  vegetation  made  green  by  artificial 
irrigation,  while  another  sees  evidences  only  of  a 
mountain-making  era,  or  some  other  natural  agen- 
cies at  work  which  are  of  such  a  character  as  to 
place  the  planet  almost  beyond  the  possibility  of 
habitation.  And  even  if  land  and  water  in  fitting 
proportions  clearly  could  be  made  out  to  exist  on 
Mars,  that  fact  would  not  go  far  in  proving  that 
it  is  the  abode  of  life  like  ours.  The  occurrence 
of  such  life  is  a  matter  depending  on  the  nice  ad- 
justment of  various  conditions  that  are  not  likely 
to  coexist,  geologically  speaking,  for  more  than  a 
very  limited  time  on  any  planet ;  and  astronomy 
is  a  long  way  from  proving  that  such  conditions 
ever  have  existed  in  the  entire  period  of  the  evo- 
lution of  the  planet  Mars.  Probably  it  is  with  that 
planet  as  with  the  earth,  which  quite  early  in 
geological  times  looked  as  Habitable  from  a  dis- 
tance as  it  now  does,  though  it  is  only  of  late  that 
it  really  has  been  suitable  for  anything  like  human 
life. 

About  twenty-five  years  ago  the  late  Professor 
Richard  A.  Proctor,  one  of  the  most  eminent  of 
English  astronomers,  wrote  a  book  entitled 
"Other  Worlds  than  Ours."  In  it  he  unquali- 
fiedly and  emphatically  advocated  the  theory  that 
the  other  planets  of  our  solar  system  as  well  as  the 
earth  are  inhabited.  He  says,  "  When  I  wrote  that 
work  I  set  out  with  the  idea  of  maintaining,  what 


SOLITARINESS  OF  MAN  295 

then  generally  was  believed,  the  theory  that  all 
the  eight  known  planets  of  the  solar  system  are 
inhabited." 

As  any  one  easily  can  imagine,  an  author  does 
not  like  to  change  his  published  views,  and,  unless 
he  has  reasons  the  most  urgent,  will  not  be  likely 
to  do  so. 

Eight  or  ten  years  after  the  publication  of  the 
volume  just  referred  to  Professor  Proctor,  in  the 
meanwhile  having  been  a  most  diligent  student 
of  astronomical  science,  wrote  thus :  "  The  new 
evidence,  when  properly  examined,  is  found  to 
oppose  fatally  instead  of  supporting  the  theory  I 
had  hoped  to  establish.  I  find  abundant  evidence 
that  Jupiter  cannot  be  the  abode  of  any  of  the 
forms  of  life  known  on  earth,  or  even  of  any  akin 
to  these.  I  find  that  Saturn  too,  upon  recent  evi- 
dence, is  unfit  for  life.  The  analogies  in  which  I 
had  trusted  as  to  the  other  planets  I  find  in  every 
instance  to  point  in  the  reverse  way  from  that  in 
which  I  had  been  looking." 

While  Professor  Proctor  yielded  all  these  points, 
yet  in  fairness  we  ought  to  say  that  he  continued 
to  hold  the  opinion  that  the  time  may  come  when 
the  exterior  planets,  Mars,  Jupiter,  Saturn,  and 
the  others,  will  be  inhabitable,  and  that  the  time 
may  have  been  when  the  interior  planets,  Mercury 
and  Venus,  were  inhabitable.  Still  he  did  not  for 
a  moment  waver  in  the  conviction   that  at  the 


296  EVOLUTION  OR  CREATION? 

present  time  both  the  exterior  and  the  interior 
planets  of  our  solar  system  are  as  destitute  of  in- 
habitants as  is  the  fiery  heart  of  the  earth,  or  the 
blazing  surface  of  the  sun,  or  the  desolate,  water- 
less, and  airless  mountains  of  the  moon. 

At  this  point  a  question  may  be  raised,  whether 
it  is  not  probable  that  some  of  the  suns  in  the 
stellar  universe  have  planets  that,  like  the  earth, 
are  inhabitable.  It  is  impossible  to  say  that  such 
is  not  the  case,  and,  reasoning  from  analogy,  there 
are  grounds  for  supposing  that  such  really  is  the 
case.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  positive 
evidence  for  such  a  conclusion,  and  the  analogies 
are  far  less  convincing  now  than  formerly  they 
were  thought  to  be. 

It  is  absolutely  certain,  so  far  as  analogies  can 
lead  to  a  conclusion,  that  organized  life  by  no 
possibility  can  exist  in  some  of  the  sun  systems 
with  which  science  has  made  us  familiar. 

One  in  every  forty  or  fifty  of  the  so-called  fixed 
stars  or  suns  is  variable  to  such  a  degree  that,  in 
limited  periods,  it  passes  through  the  most  re- 
markable changes,  causing,  as  we  are  forced  to 
believe,  such  variations  of  temperature  that  pla- 
netic  life  anywhere  within  the  limits  of  those  vari- 
able sun  systems  is  out  of  the  question. 

Recently,  in  a  lecture  on  these  subjects  before 
an  audience  of  university  professors  and  students, 
a  scholar  who  has  given  careful  thought  to  these 


SOLITARINESS  OF  MAht  297 

questions  pointed  out,  in  the  following  words,  the 
improbability  of  inhabitants  inother  solarsystems  : 
"  Variation  of  heat  and  light,  such  as  we  know  to 
occur  to  a  great  extent  in  not  a  few  stars  and  to 
a  very  considerable  extent,  probably,  in  a  very 
large  number  besides,  would  be  fatal  to  an  atten- 
dant planet  as  an  abode  of  life ;  so,  also,  would 
the  formation  of  a  system  composed  of  two  or 
more  nearly  equal  components  (double  stars),  of 
which  there  are  many  instances  known,  and  prob- 
ably many  more  which  we  cannot  detect. 

"  Even  the  dark  bodies  of  stellar  dimensions, 
which  we  know  to  exist  in  quite  a  number  of  cases 
and  to  be  the  cause  of  some  of  the  apparent  vari- 
ations in  brightness  of  the  brilliant  stars,  do  not 
appear  likely  to  be  uniformly  or  spherically  shaped 
bodies,  and  on  an  irregularly  shaped  mass  the  con- 
ditions of  life  could  not  be  well  arranged." 

Now,  without  going  further  into  details,  we  may 
say,  in  a  word,  that  every  year  the  advocates  of 
a  plurality  of  inhabited  worlds  find,  in  the  varied 
and  remarkable  results  of  scientific  investigation, 
less  and  less  encouragement.  Nineteen  twentieths 
of  the  beautiful  bodies  that  glimmer  in  the  heavens 
which,  a  few  years  since,  by  some  scientists  were 
thought  to  be  inhabitable,  are  now  transferred, 
with  scarcely  a  dissenting  voice,  from  the  positive 
to  the  negative  side  of  this  question.  Hence  the 
suspicion,  even  with  naturalistic  scientists,  is  gain- 


29S  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

ing  ground  that  among  the  infinitude  of  worlds 
our  earth  is  the  only  one  on  which  physical,  intel- 
ligent, and  moral  beings  like  the  human  race  find 
their  abode,  and  that  the  Creator  has  selected  this 
small  material  world,  and  not  any  other,  as  an  arena 
on  which  to  work  out  some  of  the  grandest  prob- 
lems that  ever  have  been  or  ever  will  be  submitted 
to  the  universe ;  and  that  all  the  planets  and  all 
the  star  systems,  as  the  Bible  implies,  were  created 
to  regulate  for  man  the  earth's  motions,  to  aid  him 
in  his  otherwise  perilous  navigations,  and  by  study 
and  contemplation  to  awaken  in  him  thoughts 
of  the  skill,  power,  and  grandeur  of  the  infinite 
Being  who  made  them. 

Let  us  listen  for  a  moment  to  certain  leading 
scientists  of  a  class  certainly  not  blindly  prejudiced 
in  favor  of  Bible  revelation,  who  speak  neverthe- 
less concerning  the  design  of  God  in  creation  much 
in  the  same  vein  as  did  the  Jehovah  prophets. 

Not  very  long  since,  in  a  magazine  article,  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  used  these  words:  "  It  would  ap- 
pear as  if  one  of  the  ends  of  the  Creator  in  setting 
these  shining  things  [the  stars]  in  heaven  was  to 
woo  the  attention  and  to  excite  the  intellectual 
activity  of  his  earth-born  child." 

Lester  F.  Ward,  a  pronounced  evolutionist, 
who,  at  least  in  one  of  the  branches  of  natural 
science,  is  perhaps  at  the  present  time  the  most 
noted  writer  in  the  world,  has  also  spoken  words 


SOLITARINESS   OF  MAN  299 

that  show  on  this  subject  what  appears  to  be  the 
present  drift  of  scientific  thought.  In  a  contribu- 
tion to  "  Social  Philosophy  "  he  says :  "  So  far  as 
can  be  judged  from  what  we  know  of  the  essen- 
tial conditions  to  life,  the  earth  is  highly  favored 
among  the  planets  of  our  system,  and  it  may  well 
be  that  this  is  the  only  one  out  of  them  all  on 
which  the  conditions  to  a  high  development  exist. 
It  seems  impossible  that  the  great  planets  Jupiter 
and  Saturn  can  be  inhabited  by  any  such  beings 
as  have  been  developed  on  our  globe ;  and  care- 
ful studies  of  temperature  that  must  prevail  on 
Venus  and  Mercury  seem  to  negative  such  an  as- 
sumption for  either  of  them.  If  Mars  possesses 
life,  it  must  be  inured  to  somewhat  severer  condi- 
tions than  generally  prevail  with  us.  .  .  .  If  Jupi- 
ter radiates  his  own  internal  heat  he  may  render 
some  of  his  swift-flying  moons  inhabitable,  but 
most  of  the  satellites  of  the  solar  system  are 
doubtless  as  dead  as  our  moon,  which  has  neither 
water  nor  air.  The  sun  is  an  enormous  mass  of 
matter  four  hundred  thousand  times  as  large  as 
the  earth  and  containing  99.866  per  cent,  of  the 
matter  of  the  whole  solar  system.  Yet  it  is  known 
to  be  in  a  state  of  such  intense  heat  that  some  of 
the  metals  which  require  great  heat  to  melt  are 
not  only  melted,  but  volatilized.  No  one,  there- 
fore, conceives  that  there  can  be  any  life  or  intel- 
ligence on  the  sun.     But  our  sun  is  only  one  of 


300  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

the  lesser  fixed  stars,  and  it  may  be  assumed 
that  similar  conditions  prevail  throughout  the 
universe." 

In  an  interesting  and  instructive  book  entitled 
"  The  Destiny  of  Man,"  Dr.  John  Fiske,  a  distin- 
guished philosophical  and  scientific  writer  who 
classes  himself  anions  Darwin  evolutionists,  has 
spoken  words  so  strongly  confirmatory  of  what 
we  have  been  saying  as  to  the  change  of  attitude 
among  scientists  and  philosophers  that  at  consid- 
erable length  we  quote  from  him  :  "  In  our  day  it 
is  hard  to  realize  the  startling  effect  of  the  dis- 
covery that  man  does  not  dwell  at  the  center  of 
things,  but  is  the  denizen  of  a  tiny  speck,  quite 
invisible  amid  the  innumerable  throng  of  flaming 
suns  that  make  up  our  galaxy.  To  the  contem- 
poraries of  Copernicus  the  new  theory  seemed  to 
strike  at  the  very  foundations  of  Christian  theology. 
If  the  earth  is  not  the  center  of  the  universe,  then 
the  career  of  humanity  cannot  be  the  sole  object 
of  God's  creative  forethought  and  fostering  care, 
was  the  reasoning,  and  the  elaborate  scheme  of 
human  salvation  is  found  to  be  based  upon  a  false 
assumption.  When  we  bear  this  in  mind,  we  see 
how  natural  and  inevitable  it  was  that  the  church 
should  persecute  such  men  as  Galileo  and  Bruno. 
But  all  these  matters  are  outgrown.  The  specu- 
lative necessity  for  man's  occupying  the  largest 
and  most  central  spot  in  the  universe  is  no  longer 


SOLITARINESS   OF  MAN  301 

felt,  and  is  recognized  as  a  primitive  and  childish 
notion.  With  our  larger  knowledge  we  see  that 
these  vast  and  fiery  suns  are,  after  all,  but  the 
Titan-like  servants  of  the  little  planets  that  they 
bear  with  them  in  their  flight  through  the  abysses 
of  space.  Out  from  the  awful  gaseous  turmoil  of 
the  central  mass  dart  those  ceaseless  waves  of 
gentle  radiance  that,  when  caught  upon  the  sur- 
face of  whirling  worlds  like  ours,  bring  forth  the 
varied  forms  .  .  .  that  make  up  what  we  can  see 
of  life.  And  as,  when  God  revealed  himself  to 
his  ancient  prophet,  he  came  not  in  the  earthquake 
or  the  tempest,  but  in  a  voice  that  was  *  still '  and 
1  small,'  so  that  divine  spark,  the  human  soul,  as 
it  takes  up  its  brief  abode  in  this  realm  of  fleeting 
phenomena,  chooses  not  the  central  sun,  where 
elemental  forces  forever  blaze  and  clash,  but 
selects  an  outlying  terrestrial  nook,  where  seeds 
may  germinate  and  where  the  forms  of  organic 
life  may  come  to  take  shape  and  thrive." 

It  is  quite  a  claim  in  behalf  of  the  position  we 
have  taken,  but  we  venture  to  make  it ;  namely, 
that  at  the  present  time  these  words  of  Professors 
Proctor  and  Tyndall,  of  Professor  Ward  and  Dr. 
John  Fiske,  fairly  represent  the  attitude  of  nearly 
every  scientist  and  philosopher  who  has  given 
thought  to  these  subjects  and  who  has  not  en- 
tirely gone  over  to  atheistic  naturalism  or  has  not 
fallen  a  victim  to  an  unalterable  predisposition. 


302  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

Thus,  according  to  the  most  recent  scientific 
opinion,  it  not  only  turns  out  to  be  the  wisest 
thing  the  Creator  could  do  to  place  man  on  the 
earth,  small  and  insignificant  as  it  is,  where  he  can 
see  the  sun  and  the  other  flaming  stars  without 
being  enveloped  in  their  terrific  conflagrations,  but 
also  this  placement  of  man  on  the  earth  seems  to 
be  in  strict  harmony  with  the  entire  creative 
economy.  Oftener  than  otherwise  it  is  the  small 
object  that  is  selected  for  special  and  great  pur- 
poses. As  compared  with  the  planet  Jupiter,  the 
human  skull  is  insignificant,  but  that  majestic  orb 
does  not  begin  to  match  the  workmanship  done 
by  the  Creator  in  the  building  of  a  human  brain 
that  weighs  only  a  few  ounces,  or  in  fashioning 
the  house  of  bone  that  protects  it.  With  solemn 
reverence  and  justly  so  we  take  in  our  hands  a 
human  skull,  a  kind  of  vacated  temple  of  God, 
where  once  echoed  divine  invitations  to  be  great 
and  grand,  pure  and  holy.  In  these  relations  the 
human  skull  is  larger  than  the  whole  physical  uni- 
verse, and  the  thought  evolved  in  it  can  fly  be- 
yond the  remotest  bounds  of  space.  In  moments 
of  our  better  thinking  the  entire  gulf  of  stars  and 
the  whole  magnificent  mileage  and  tonnage  of  the 
universe  seem  to  pale  into  insignificance  before 
one  of  those  little  ones  whom  our  Saviour  took  in 
his  arms  and  blessed.  Who  has  not  felt  that  one 
glance  from  the  glowing,  inquiring  eye  of  a  beau- 


MAJESTY  OF  MAN  303 

tiful  child  is  more  significant  than  the  brilliancy 
for  a  whole  night  long  of  the  morning  and  even- 
ing star,  and  are  we  not  taught  that  when  every 
glistening  sun  shall  fall  from  its  place  in  the  sky 
the  little  child  will  only  have  begun  its  journey? 

II.    MAJESTY    OF    MAN 

From  the  closing  paragraph  of  the  foregoing 
section,  also  from  much  else  that  has  been  said  in 
other  chapters  of  this  book,  the  relative  greatness 
of  humanity  easily  can  be  inferred.  But,  as  the 
subject  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  entire 
discussion  of  man's  creation,  it  may  receive  in 
these  closing  paragraphs  a  fuller  and  more  explicit 
statement. 

In  determining  the  relative  rank  of  man  in  the 
universe,  we  call  attention  first  to  the  supreme 
importance  placed  upon  him  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures. As  already  hinted,  the  teaching  is  that  it 
was  for  man  the  world  was  made;  for  him  the 
Bible  was  given ;  for  him  Christ  died ;  and  for 
him  heaven  is  preparing.  De  Quincy,  speaking 
of  man's  creation,  interprets  the  opening  chapters 
of  Genesis  in  these  words :  "  Is  not  man  there 
found  to  be  the  central  figure,  or,  to  speak  more 
truly,  the  only  figure?  All  besides  serves  but  as 
a  background  for  him.  He  is  not  one  part  of  the 
furniture  of  this  planet,  not  the  highest  merely  in 


304  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

the  scale  of  its  creatures,  but  the  lord  of  all ;  sun, 
moon,  and  stars,  and  all  the  visible  creation,  bor- 
rowing all  their  worth  and  all  their  significance 
from  the  relations  in  which  they  stand  to  him." 

With  equal  forcefulness  the  apostle  brings  out 
the  same  thought  when  he  says  to  his  Roman 
brethren,  "  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  this 
present  time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with 
the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed  in  us.  .  .  .  For 
we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and 
travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now  "  (Rom.  viii. 
1 8,  22).  The  implication  is  that  the  physical  uni- 
verse, because  of  its  anxiety  for  humanity,  is 
measurably  out  of  sorts  and  is  troubled  on  account 
of  man's  misfortune  and  sin  even  to  the  point  of 
groaning. 

In  another  suggestive  passage  the  apostle  re- 
iterates the  same  thought  by  personifying  the 
entire  physical  creation  and  representing  it  as 
watching  the  human  race  with  intensest  interest 
as  if  it  must  stand  ready  to  contribute  aid  when- 
ever possible  toward  man's  evolution  and  eleva- 
tion :  "  For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature 
waiteth  for  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God." 
In  the  same  passage  men  are  said  to  be  "  heirs  of 
God  "  and  "  joint-heirs  with  Christ,"  which  terms, 
it  must  be  confessed,  are  suggestive  of  magnifi- 
cent relationships  (Rom.  viii.  14-17;  comp.  Gal. 
iv.  7). 


MAJESTY  OF  MAN  305 

And,  too,  as  already  has  been  shown,  man 
originally  was  created  in  the  image  and  likeness 
of  Christ ;  higher  honor  than  that  could  not  well 
be  paid  the  human  race. 

Our  Lord,  in  one  of  his  controversies  with  the 
Pharisees,  incidentally  hints  at  man's  greatness  and 
supremacy  in  these  words :  "  And  he  said  unto 
them,  The  Sabbath  [the  day  God  especially  had 
honored]  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the 
Sabbath  "  (Mark  ii.  27).  Had  occasion  required, 
with  equal  fitness  might  not  Christ  have  said, 
"  The  world,  the  stars,  and  everything  else  in  the 
physical  universe  have  been  made  for  man,  and 
not  man  for  them  "  ? 

The  Apostle  Peter,  at  least  by  implication, 
teaches  that  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  ministers  of  the  New  are  better  acquainted 
with  some  things  than  are  the  angels  (1  Pet.  i.  12), 
and  it  is  expressly  announced  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  that  God  has  not  put  the  world  to  come 
in  subjection  to  angels,  but  to  man,  and  that  noth- 
ing is  left  that  is  not  to  be  put  in  subjection  to  him 
(Heb.  ii.  5,  8). 

There  are  other  passages  which,  in  their  bear- 
ing on  the  subject,  cannot  fail  to  arrest  attention. 
In  one  instance  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  repre- 
sented as  resounding  with  rejoicings  over  even 
one  fallen  man  who  repents  of  sin  and  enters 
upon  a  new  life  (Luke  xv.  7). 


306  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

In  another  passage  the  thought  is  suggested 
that  the  several  pathways  of  humanity  are  thronged 
with  interested  observers  of  what  men  do  and  say, 
suffer  and  think  (Heb.  xii.  i). 

Other  passages  represent  the  angelic  hosts  as 
being  the  servants  of  man :  they  visited  and  fed 
Elijah  ;  they  were  present  to  protect  the  imperiled 
Daniel;  they  delivered  the  imprisoned  Peter;  are 
commissioned  to  keep  the  righteous  in  all  their 
ways  (Ps.  xci.  11);  are  sent  to  accompany  pious 
and  afflicted  men  on  their  flight  to  heaven  (Luke 
xvi.  22) ;  and  to  them  is  assigned  the  care  of  little 
children  (Matt,  xviii.  10).  The  Apostle  Paul  asks 
the  explicit  question,  "  Are  they  not  all  minister- 
ing spirits,  sent  forth  to  minister  for  them  who 
shall  be  heirs  of  salvation?"     (Heb.  i.  14.) 

The  implication  in  these  words  almost  bears 
out  the  thought  that  the  angels  were  not  created 
for  their  own  sakes,  but  were  created  to  help  and 
serve  man,  and  but  for  that  might  not  have  been 
created  at  all. 

Now,  taking  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  the  statement 
cannot  well  be  questioned  that,  with  the  excep- 
tion, or  rather  apparent  exception,  of  two  pas- 
sages, it  places  man  above  the  hierarchies  of  the 
angels  and  on  a  throne  above  all  other  intelli- 
gences and  next  to  that  of  the  Creator  himself. 

The  first  of  these  two  apparently  exceptional 
passages  reads  thus  :  "  Whereas  angels,  which  are 


MAJESTY  OF  MAN  307 

greater  [or  which  excel]  in  power  and  might, 
bring  not  railing  accusation  against  them  [them- 
selves] before  the  Lord  "  (2  Pet.  ii.  11).  In  these 
words  it  is  extremely  doubtful  if  the  apostle  had 
any  intention  of  instituting  a  comparison  between 
men  and  angels ;  but  even  if  he  had  it  will  be 
noticed  that  the  only  superiority  of  the  angels 
mentioned  is  that  of  "power  and  might."  And 
the  connection  clearly  shows  that  the  apostle  is 
speaking  of  fallen  men  who  have  weakened  what 
strength  they  originally  had  by  walking"  after  the 
flesh  in  the  lust  of  defilement"  (verse  10;  comp. 
verses  1 1-20).  There  does  not  appear  to  be  the 
slightest  ground  for  the  supposition  that  he  had 
in  mind  men  in  their  resurrection  and  glorified 
bodies,  or  men  in  this  present  life  who  are 
"  strengthened  with  all  might,  according  to  his 
[Christ's]  glorious  power"  (Col.  i.  1 1  ;  comp.  1 
Pet.  v.  10);  and  if  not  taught  here,  then  in  no 
passage  in  the  New  Testament  are  redeemed  and 
glorified  men  represented  as  inferior  in  strength, 
knowledge,  or  wisdom  to  any  created  intelligences 
in  the  visible  or  invisible  universe. 

Turning  to  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  the 
other  exceptional  passage.  In  the  Authorized 
Version  we  read,  "  When  I  consider  thy  heavens, 
the  work  of  thy  fingers,  the  moon  and  the  stars, 
which  thou  hast  ordained ;  what  is  man,  that  thou 
art  mindful  of  him  ?  and  the  son  of  man,  that  thou 


308  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

visitest  him  ?  for  thou  hast  made  him  a  little  lower 
than  the  angels"  (Ps.  viii.  3-5). 

Now  the  fact  that  these  two  passages  are  the 
only  ones  in  the  entire  Bible  that  hint  that  any 
created  thing  in  the  universe  outranks  man  very 
naturally  rouses  the  suspicion  that  the  passage 
before  us  may  have  another  than  the  ordinary 
meaning  attributed  to  it ;  and  it  requires  only  a 
brief  critical  study  to  change  the  suspicion  into  a 
certainty.  The  word  here  translated  "  angels  " — 
a  little  lower  than  "  angels  " — is  elolieim,  which  pri- 
marily means  "  God."  The  distinguished  Hebrew 
scholar,  Gesenius,  accordingly  translates  the  pas- 
sage thus :  "  For  thou  hast  caused  him  to  lack  but 
little  of  God."  The  Revised  Version  reads,  "  For 
thou  hast  made  him  but  little  lower  than  God." 
A  strictly  literal  translation  is,  "  For  thou  hast 
created  him  but  a  shaving  from  God."  Now 
with  this  rendering,  as  will  be  noticed,  the  entire 
psalm  is  harmonious  with  itself,  which  is  not  the 
case  according  to  the  reading  of  the  English 
version.  The  following,  therefore,  is  the  more 
exact  translation :  4<  O  Lord  our  Lord,  how  ex- 
cellent thy  name  in  all  the  earth!  who  hast  set 
thy  glory  above  the  heavens.  Out  of  the  mouth 
of  babes  and  sucklings  hast  thou  ordained  strength 
because  of  thine  enemies,  that  thou  mightest  still 
the  enemy  and  the  avenger.  When  I  consider 
thy  heavens,  the  work  of  thy  fingers,  the  moon 


MAJESTY  OF  MAN  309 

and  the  stars,  which  thou  hast  ordained ;  what  is 
man  ?  Thou  art  mindful  of  him.  And  the  son 
of  man  ?  Thou  visitest  him,  and  hast  caused  him 
to  lack  only  a  little  from  being  God,  and  hast 
crowned  him  with  honor  and  glory.  Thou  mad- 
est  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy 
hands ;  thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet : 
all  sheep  and  oxen,  yea,  and  the  beasts  of  the 
field ;  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  the  fish  of  the  sea, 
and  whatsoever  passeth  through  the  paths  of  the 
seas.  O  Lord  our  Lord,  how  excellent  thy  name 
in  all  the  earth!  " 

This  psalm,  therefore,  instead  of  diminishing 
our  estimate,  teaches  that  the  Creator  came  just 
as  near  making  man  like  himself  as  he  could.  Be- 
tween man  and  the  King  there  is  a  shaving,  but 
above  man,  in  the  possibilities  of  his  nature  and 
in  his  future  possible  attainments,  there  is  nothing 
except  the  King. 

But,  as  perhaps  the  reader  need  not  be  told, 
science  in  the  advocacy  of  the  superiority  of  man 
is  no  less  pronounced  than  the  Bible.  The  most 
profound  scientists  of  our  time  are  answering  the 
question,  What  is  man  ?  by  asking  another :  What 
is  he  not? 

A  few  years  ago  scientists  raised  the  speculative 
question  whether  some  new  and  more  noble  being 
may  not  yet  be  created  and  outrank  man,  as  man 
now  outranks  the  brute.     That  question  repeat- 


310  EVOLUTION   OR   CREATION? 

edly  has  been  answered,  but  always  in  the 
negative. 

From  a  scientific  point  of  view  Professor  Agas- 
siz  was  one  of  the  first  to  make  reply.  He  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  spinal  column  of  the 
first  vertebrates,  the  fishes  and  serpents,  is  hori- 
zontal ;  in  the  next  higher  organization,  the  birds, 
it  stands  in  an  oblique  position,  while  in  man  it  is 
perpendicular.  He  accordingly  argued  that  the 
perfection  of  the  animal  creation  is  reached  in 
man,  and  that  any  change  in  his  attitude  and  car- 
riage would  be  not  an  elevation,  but  a  declension. 

From  another  and  distinct  point  of  view  Hugh 
Miller,  the  eminent  Scotch  geologist,  reasoned 
that  man  is  the  highest  order  of  being  that  ever 
will  stand  on  the  earth,  inasmuch  as  he  "  crowns 
the  long  series  of  animal  creations  whose  fossils 
are  embedded  in  the  successive  geological  strata, 
as  we  ascend  from  the  fire  rocks  to  the  alluvium 
on  which  we  dwell." 

Dr.  John  Fiske,  in  his  recent  work  already  re- 
ferred to,  while  expounding  Professor  Darwin's 
theory  says  :  "  As  we  thoroughly  grasp  the  mean- 
ing of  all  this,  we  see  on  the  Darwinian  theory 
that  it  is  impossible  that  any  creature  zoologically 
distinct  from  man  and  superior  to  him  shall  ever 
at  any  future  time  exist  upon  this  earth.  In  the 
regions  of  unconditional  possibility  it  is  open  to 
any  one  to  argue,  if  he  chooses,  that  such  a  crea- 


MAJESTY  OF  MAN  311 

ture  may  come  to  exist;  but  the  theory  of  Dar- 
win is  utterly  opposed  to  any  such  conclusion. 

"  According  to  Darwinism,  the  creation  of  man 
is  still  the  goal  toward  which  nature  tended  from 
the  beginning.  Not  the  production  of  any  higher 
creature,  but  the  perfecting  of  humanity,  is  to  be 
the  glorious  consummation  of  nature's  long  and 
tedious  work.  .  .  .  The  whole  creation  has  been 
groaning  and  travailing  together  in  order  to  bring 
forth  that  last  consummate  specimen  of  God's 
handiwork,  the  human  soul.  .  .  .  Science  now 
forces  us  to  the  conclusion,  much  more  clearly 
than  ever  before,  that  man  is  the  chief  among 
God's  creatures.  .  .  .  The  modern  theory  of 
evolution  enlarges  tenfold  the  significance  of 
human  life,  places  it  upon  even  a  loftier  eminence 
than  poets  or  prophets  have  imagined,  and  makes 
it  seem  more  than  ever  the  chief  object  of  that 
creative  activity  which  is  manifested  in  the  physi- 
cal universe.  As  Darwin  himself  explicitly  has 
said,  '  Man  is  the  wonder  and  glory  of  the  uni- 
verse.' " 

We  shall  be  pardoned  for  quoting  once  more 
from  Professor  Dana's  latest  admirable  "  Treatise 
on  Geology  " :  "  Man  was  the  first  being,  in  the 
geological  succession,  capable  of  an  intelligent 
survey  of  nature  and  a  comprehension  of  her 
laws ;  the  first  capable  of  augmenting  his  strength 
by  bending  nature  to  his  service,  rendering  thereby 


312  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

a  weak  body  stronger  than  all  possible  animal 
force ;  the  first  capable  of  deriving  happiness  from 
truth  and  goodness,  or  apprehending  eternal  right, 
and  of  reaching  toward  a  knowledge  of  self  and 
God.  .  .  .  There  is  in  man,  therefore,  a  spiritual 
element  in  which  the  brute  has  no  share.  His 
power  of  indefinite  progress,  his  thoughts  and 
desires  that  look  onward  even  beyond  time,  his 
recognition  of  spiritual  existence  and  of  a  Divinity 
above,  all  evince  a  nature  that  partakes  of  the 
infinite  and  divine." 

Dr.  A.  R.  Wallace,  writing  in  the  same  vein, 
declares  that  "  man  is  the  culmination  of  all  na- 
ture." And  Professor  Joseph  Le  Conte,  speak- 
ing from  the  psychical  point  of  view,  says,  "  Man 
must  be  set  off,  not  only  against  the  animal  king- 
dom, but  against  the  whole  of  nature  besides  as  an 
equivalent." 

Now,  taking  Professor  Agassiz,  Hugh  Miller, 
Charles  Darwin,  Dr.  John  Fiske  and  Professor 
Dana,  Dr.  Wallace  and  Professor  Le  Conte,  as 
representatives  of  the  attitude  of  scientific  and 
philosophical  thinkers,  we  have  the  verdict  that 
man  is  king  everywhere  within  the  scope  of 
scientific  observation,  and  we  also  discover,  what 
often  has  happened  and,  indeed,  always  is  happen- 
ing, that  science  and  philosophy,  when  they  have 
done  their  most  thorough  work,  are  found  to  teach 
nothing  that  is  at  variance  with  the  revelations  of 


MAJESTY   OF  MAN  313 

the  Bible,  if  those  revelations  have  received  care- 
ful and  wise  interpretation. 

But  there  is  still  another  viewpoint  from  which 
we  are  enabled  to  estimate  the  relative  greatness 
of  man.  It  is  by  taking  note  of  what  he  already 
has  achieved  and  in  the  future  is  likely  to  achieve. 
On  all  sides  it  is  acknowledged  that  during  the 
last  fifty  years  human  discoveries,  inventions,  and 
progress,  especially  in  the  various  arts  of  civiliza- 
tion, are  well-nigh  bewildering;  and  yet  all  feel 
that  the  possibilities  of  human  achievement  are  a 
long  way  from  being  reached.  Indeed,  it  occa- 
sionally strikes  the  more  thoughtful  minds  that 
there  are  continents  within  the  range  of  man's  at- 
tainment that  not  only  have  not  been  traversed, 
but  hardly  have  been  touched  even  by  the  most 
enterprising  explorers.  It  now  and  then  is  asked, 
and  with  good  reason,  if  there  can  be  greater  dis- 
coveries, more  marvelous  inventions,  more  beau- 
tiful or  more  useful  works  of  art,  more  entrancing 
music,  sublimer  and  more  symmetrical  architec- 
ture, than  already  have  appeared  as  the  product 
of  man's  genius. 

The  answer  to-day  is,  Yes  ;  a  thousandfold  more 
marvelous,  beautiful,  and  sublime,  if  the  nature  of 
things  will  allow  of  such  improvement  and  if  man 
works  no  harm  to  himself.  For  all  limitations  seem 
to  be  with  the  clay,  not  with  the  potter.  If  in 
the  nature  of  the  clay,  or  of  things,  it  is  possible  to 


314  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

build  "  courts  of  honor  "  a  hundred  or  a  thousand- 
fold more  extended  and  more  imposing  than  the 
one  encircled  by  the  public  buildings  that  made 
up  the  White  City  in  Chicago,  they  will  be  built. 
For  all  indications  go  to  show  that  in  every 
human  mind  there  are  wrapped  up  designs  of  cities 
with  courts,  palaces,  and  walls  compared  with 
whose  vastness,  magnificence,  and  transcendent 
beauty  all  things  earthly  are  cheap  as  wooden 
blocks  and  toys.  The  undeveloped  skill  and 
power  of  man  will  yet  actualize  these  dreams  and 
ideals  if  he  becomes  holy,  has  the  will,  and  if  the 
clay  permits. 

But  more ;  if,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  is  pos- 
sible for  some  invention  to  be  thought  out  and 
built  that  will  bear  the  tourist  over  the  earth's 
surface  at  the  rate  of  a  thousand  miles  per  minute, 
it  will  be  done. 

If,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  is  possible  to  con- 
struct an  ocean  ship  that  can  cross  the  Atlantic 
in  a  day  or  night,  it  will  be  done. 

If,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  is  possible  to  build 
an  air-ship  to  fly  among  the  clouds  with  the  speed 
and  safety  of  an  eagle,  it  will  be  done. 

If,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  is  possible  to  talk 
with  friends  a  thousand  miles  away  without  the 
use  of  the  telegraph  or  telephone,  it  will  be  done. 

If,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  is  possible,  by 
means  of  a  camera  obscura,  to  throw  upon  the 


MAJESTY  OF  MAN  315 

sky  or  clouds  gigantic  pictures  that  can  be  wit- 
nessed by  ten  millions  of  people,  it  will  be  done. 

If,  in  the  nature  of  things,  it  is  possible  to  gen- 
erate, chemically  or  mechanically,  cyclonic  and 
volcanic  forces,  and  harness  them,  as  we  now  do 
the  magnetic  and  electric  ones,  it  will  be  done. 
For  all  possibilities,  we  repeat,  are  involved  in  the 
mind  of  man,  and  simply  are  waiting  the  call  of 
some  necessity  or  purpose  to  bring  them  out.  If 
the  human  race  does  not  sink  into  that  decadence 
which  results  from  neglect  of  religion,  from  dis- 
obedience and  iniquity,  those  who  live  a  hundred 
years  from  now  will  wonder  much  that  we  of  to- 
day were  wont  to  boast  extravagantly  of  our  at- 
tainments and  achievements.  Man  scarcely  has 
begun  to  show  his  skill  or  do  his  work.  Even  in 
the  presence  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  it  may  yet 
be  said,  "  Greater  works  than  these  "  shall  man 
be  able  easily  to  do  (comp.  John  xiv.  12). 

And  in  that  other  unexplored  world  it  does  not 
yet  appear  what  man  is  to  be,  but  we  are  told  that 
when  he,  the  Christ  and  Creator,  shall  appear  man 
is  to  be  "  like  him,"  not  merely  in  outward  form 
and  glory,  but  in  the  sweep  and  scope  of  a  divine 
and  deathless  intelligence.  And  psychological 
science  already  is  hinting  that  in  these  exhaustless 
stores  and  boundless  oceans  of  knowledge  that  now 
largely  are  dormant  in  the  human  mind  is  the 
promise  of  an  evolution  which,  as  the  ages  of 


316  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

eternity  pass,  shall  place  man  in  power,  know- 
ledge, and  wisdom  on  a  plane  only  a  step  below 
where  dwells  the  infinite  God. 

And  all  this  is  in  harmony  with  the  well-nigh 
bewildering  disclosures  of  the  Bible  as  to  the 
future  of  man.  The  inspired  revelator  represents 
Christ  as  saying,  "  To  him  that  overcometh  will  I 
grant  to  sit  with  me  in  my  throne,  even  as  I  also 
overcame,  and  am  set  down  with  my  Father  in 
his  throne"  (Rev.  iii.  21).  "Know  ye  not  that 
ye  shall  judge  angels?"      (1  Cor.  vi.  3.) 

At  different  times  the  prophetic  eye  has  been 
permitted  to  look  into  what  is  called  the  heavenly 
world.  With  remarkable  uniformity  this  is  the 
discovery  that  has  been  made :  a  type  of  human- 
ity of  the  most  dazzling  brightness  is  seen  to  oc- 
cupy the  throne  of  the  invisible  God,  and  to  hold 
the  scepter  of  supreme  authority.  "  I  saw  thrones," 
says  the  writer  of  Revelation,  "  and  the  saints  of 
God  sat  upon  them,  and  judgment  was  given  unto 
them"  (Rev.  xx.  4).  "And  above  the  firma- 
ment that  was  over  their  heads  was  the  likeness 
of  a  throne,  as  the  appearance  of  a  sapphire  stone  : 
and  upon  the  likeness  of  the  throne  was  the  like- 
ness as  the  appearance  of  a  man  above  upon  it " 
(Ezek.  i.  26).  There  is,  therefore,  no  mistaking 
the  family  coat  of  arms  that,  according  to  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  is  inherited  by  man. 

But,  on  second  thought,  the  vision  is  blurred. 


MAJESTY  OF  MAN  317 

The  drunkard,  the  felon,  the  harlot,  the  liar,  the 
miser,  the  murderer,  the  scoundrel,  pass  in  review, 
and  it  is  asked,  Is  this  your  magnificent  humanity  ? 

Yes — wrecked !  After  the  frost  has  touched 
and  blighted  the  rose  can  one  judge  of  its  native 
fragrance  and  beauty?  Looking  at  the  blind, 
helpless,  and  misshapen  animal  forms  that,  through 
inaction  or  bad  action,  have  fallen  under  the  curse 
of  degeneration,  can  one  judge  of  what  those 
animals  were  before  their  fall  ?  No  better  can  one 
judge  of  man  after  the  curse  of  sin  has  taken  the 
crown  from  his  brow  and  trailed  his  royal  robes 
in  the  mire.  Wait  till  the  crown  is  restored  ;  wait 
till  the  robes  are  washed ;  wait  till  Christ  is  put 
on;  wait  till  the  resurrection  is  accomplished; 
wait  till  the  coronation  is  celebrated,  then  judge. 
The  human  race,  that  now  often  seems  to  be  half 
wolf,  or  rather  "  half  serpent,  not  yet  extracted 
from  the  clay,"  will  begin  under  the  divine  touch 
and  transformation  an  evolution  whose  outcome 
is  comprehended  by  God  alone.  No  wonder  the 
revelator  implored  one  of  the  churches  to  which 
he  was  writing,  saying,  "  Hold  that  fast  which  thou 
hast,  that  no  man  take  thy  crown." 

In  the  year  1648,  in  Westminster,  England,  by 
imperial  command  were  gathered  a  number  of  pious 
and  scholarly  divines  who  at  their  nineteenth  ses- 
sion approved  what  is  known  as  the  Assemblies' 
Shorter  Catechism. 


318  EVOLUTION  OR   CREATION? 

In  church  and  home  from  that  day  to  this, 
though  less  frequently  of  late  years,  have  the 
Assemblies'  questions  and  answers  been  repeated 
by  multitudes  who  have  been  made,  as  Carlyle 
suggests,  wiser  and  better  by  their  study  and 
contemplation. 

The  first  question  propounded  reads,  "  What  is 
the  chief  end  of  man?  "  The  answer  is,  "  Man's 
chief  end  is  to  glorify  God  and  enjoy  him  for- 
ever." 

But  were  those  distinguished  scholars  in  session 
now,  and  were  they  as  well  versed  in  the  recently 
established  facts  of  science  and  philosophy,  of 
tradition  and  history,  as  in  the  theology  of  their 
day,  they  would  add  to  the  catechism  two  other 
questions  that  are  no  less  suggestive  and  profound 
than  those  they  published  to  the  world. 

The  first  of  the  new  questions  would  be  this : 
Who  created  the  universe  and  all  things  in  it? 
God,  in  the  person  of  Christ,  would  be  the  answer. 

The  second  question  would  be,  What  is  the 
chief  end  in  all  Christ  has  done? 

Recalling  the  garden  of  Eden,  and  the  cross 
on  Calvary,  with  its  background  of  universal  his- 
tory, and  forecasting  the  evolution  and  enthrone- 
ment of  man,  and  his  song  of  redemption,  there 
can  be  but  one  answer :  The  chief  end  in  the  crea- 
tion of  the  universe  and  in  all  else  Christ  has  done 
is  to  glorify  man  and  enjoy  him  forever, 


P||ffi»fl»iIihiii?iS?K,!  Semi"a7  Libraries 


1    1012  01248  0168 


